Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 12:49 PM Melanie Plageman
> wrote:
>> If using a separate memory context solely for the purpose of accounting
>> is considered an anti-pattern, ...
> This thread isn't the right place to argue about the merits of that
> patch, at least IMHO, but I
On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 12:49 PM Melanie Plageman
wrote:
> If using a separate memory context solely for the purpose of accounting
> is considered an anti-pattern, ...
This thread isn't the right place to argue about the merits of that
patch, at least IMHO, but I don't think that's an
On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 9:50 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais writes:
> > After catching up with this thread, where pending bugs are listed and
> > discussed,
> > I wonder if the current patches trying to lower the HashJoin memory
> > explosion[1]
> > could be added to the
Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais writes:
> After catching up with this thread, where pending bugs are listed and
> discussed,
> I wonder if the current patches trying to lower the HashJoin memory
> explosion[1]
> could be added to the "Older bugs affecting stable branches" list of
>
Hi,
After catching up with this thread, where pending bugs are listed and discussed,
I wonder if the current patches trying to lower the HashJoin memory explosion[1]
could be added to the "Older bugs affecting stable branches" list of
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_16_Open_Items as
Greg Stark writes:
> Not added:
> * Fix improper qual pushdown after applying outer join identity 3
I already made an open item for that one.
regards, tom lane
So here's the list of CF entries that I thought *might* still get
committed either because they're an Open Issue or they're one of those
other categories. I had intended to go through and add them all to the
Open Issues but it turns out I only feel confident in a couple of them
qualifying for
On Sat, Apr 08, 2023 at 09:50:49PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think that's largely independent. We don't look back at closed-out CFs
> as a kind of TODO list; anything that's left behind there is basically
> never going to be seen again, until the author makes a new CF entry.
>
> Anything that's
On Fri, Apr 07, 2023 at 10:40:01PM -0400, Kirk Wolak wrote:
> I got no response to my point that the backquote solution is cumbersome
> because I have to use* psql in both windows*
> *and in linux environments* (realizing I am the odd duck in this group).
> But my fall back was a common script
"Gregory Stark (as CFM)" writes:
> Some of these, especially the last category, are challenging for me to
> determine. If I move forward a patch of yours that you think makes
> sense to treat as an open issue that should be resolved in this
> release then feel free to say.
I think that's largely
On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 at 11:37, Greg Stark wrote:
>
> c) Pick out the Bug Fixes, cleanup patches, and other non-feature
> patches that might be open issues for v16.
So on further examination it seems there are multiple category of
patches that are worth holding onto rather than shifting to the next
So here we are at the end of the CF:
Status summary: March 15March 22March 28April 4 April 8
Needs review: 152 128 116 96 74
Waiting on Author: 42 36 30 21 14
Ready for Committer: 39 32
On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 6:29 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Kirk Wolak writes:
> > The %T added to the PSQL Prompt is about 5 lines of code. Reviewed and
> > Ready to commit.
> > That could knock one more off really quickly :-)
>
> I'm still objecting to it, for the same reason as before.
>
>
Kirk Wolak writes:
> The %T added to the PSQL Prompt is about 5 lines of code. Reviewed and
> Ready to commit.
> That could knock one more off really quickly :-)
I'm still objecting to it, for the same reason as before.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 10:21 AM Greg Stark wrote:
> As announced on this list feature freeze is at 00:00 April 8 AoE.
> That's less than 24 hours away. If you need to set your watches to AoE
> timezone it's currently:
>
> $ TZ=AOE+12 date
> Fri 07 Apr 2023 02:05:50 AM AOE
>
> As we stand we
As announced on this list feature freeze is at 00:00 April 8 AoE.
That's less than 24 hours away. If you need to set your watches to AoE
timezone it's currently:
$ TZ=AOE+12 date
Fri 07 Apr 2023 02:05:50 AM AOE
As we stand we have:
Status summary:
Needs review: 82
Waiting on
> On 4 Apr 2023, at 20:36, Greg Stark wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 11:18, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> * clean up permission checks after 599b33b94
>>
>> I believe that the actual bug fixes are in, and what's left is just a test
>> case that people weren't very excited about adding. So maybe
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 11:18, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > * clean up permission checks after 599b33b94
>
> I believe that the actual bug fixes are in, and what's left is just a test
> case that people weren't very excited about adding. So maybe this should
> get closed out as committed.
I'm not super
"Gregory Stark (as CFM)" writes:
> However I tried to do a pass of the Needs Review patches and found
> that a lot of them were really waiting for comment and seemed to be
> useful features or bug fixes that already had a significant amount of
> work put into them and seemed likely to get
Only a few more days remain before feature freeze. We've now crossed
over 100 patches committed according to the CF app:
Status summary: March 15March 22March 28April 4
Needs review: 152 128 116 96
Waiting on Author: 42 36
Hi,
> * Pluggable toaster
> - This seems to have digressed from the original patch. There were
> patches early on and a lot of feedback. Is the result that the
> original patches are Rejected or are they still live?
We agreed to work on a completely new RFC which is currently discussed
within
Status summary:
Needs review: 116.
Waiting on Author: 30.
Ready for Committer: 32.
Committed: 94.
Moved to next CF: 17.
Returned with Feedback: 6.
Rejected: 6.
Withdrawn: 18.
Total: 319.
Ok, here are the patches that have been stuck in "Waiting
on Author" for a while. I divided
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 5:42 AM Greg Stark wrote:
> > * asynchronous execution support for Custom Scan
> - This is a pretty small isolated feature.
I was planning to review this patch, but unfortunately, I did not have
time for that, and I do not think I will for v16. So if anyone wants
to
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 10:24:43AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> * Check consistency of GUC defaults between .sample.conf and
> >> pg_settings.boot_val
> > - It looks like this was pretty active until last October and might
> > have been ready to apply at least partially? But no further
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 04:41:39PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> * Move backup-related code to xlogbackup.c/.h
> - It looks like neither Alvaro Herrera nor Michael Paquier are
> particularly convinced this is an improvement and nobody has put more
> time in this since last October. I'm inclined to
On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 5:42 AM Greg Stark wrote:
>
>
> > * Fix assertion failure with next_phase_at in snapbuild.c
> - It's a bug fix but it doesn't look like the bug has been entirely fixed?
>
We have a patch fixing the issue and reproducible steps. Another bug
was reported late in the
On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 04:41:39PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> * Avoid hiding shared filesets in pg_ls_tmpdir (pg_ls_* functions for
> showing metadata ...)
> - According to the internet "As part of their 39 month old
> development and milestones, your patch should be able to see like an
> adult
Greg Stark writes:
> * Simplify find_my_exec by using realpath(3)
> - Tom Lane is author but I don't know if he intends to apply this in
> this release
I'd like to get it done. It's currently stuck because Peter asked
for some behavioral changes that I was dubious about, and we're trying
to
So of the patches with no emails since August-December 2022:
* New hooks in the connection path
* Add log messages when replication slots become active and inactive
- Peter Smith and Alvaro Herrera have picked up this one
* Remove dead macro exec_subplan_get_plan
- Minor cleanup
* Consider
> On 22 Mar 2023, at 10:39, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
> Personally, if a patch isn't rebased up to the minute doesn't bother me at
> all. It's easy to check out as of when the email was sent (or extra bonus
> points for using git format-patch --base). Now, rebasing every month or so
> is
On 21.03.23 10:59, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
This led me to suggesting that perhaps we need to be more lenient when
it comes to new contributors. As I said, for seasoned contributors,
it's not a problem to keep up with our requirements, however silly they
are. But people who spend their evenings a
Thomas Munro writes:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 10:59 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> This led me to suggesting that perhaps we need to be more lenient when
>> it comes to new contributors. As I said, for seasoned contributors,
>> it's not a problem to keep up with our requirements, however silly
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 10:59 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I gave a talk on Friday at a private EDB mini-conference about the
> PostgreSQL open source process; and while preparing for that one, I
> ran some 'git log' commands to obtain the number of code contributors
> for each release, going back
So a week later
Status summary: March 15March 22
Needs review: 152 128
Waiting on Author: 42 36
Ready for Committer: 39 32
Committed: 61 82
Moved to next CF: 4 15
Withdrawn: 17
On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 at 05:59, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> On 2023-Mar-20, Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> This led me to suggesting that perhaps we need to be more lenient when
> it comes to new contributors. As I said, for seasoned contributors,
> it's not a problem to keep up with our requirements,
On 2023-Mar-20, Thomas Munro wrote:
> I realised that part of Alvaro's complaint was probably caused by
> cfbot's refusal to show any useful information just because it
> couldn't apply a patch the last time it tried. A small improvement
> today: now it shows a ♲ symbol (with hover text "Rebase
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 9:22 AM Greg Stark wrote:
> Yeah, even aside from flappers there's the problem that it's about as
> common for real commits to break some test as it is for patches to
> start failing tests. So often it's a real failure but it's nothing to
> do with the patch, it has to do
On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 at 16:08, Thomas Munro wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 3:15 AM Greg Stark wrote:
> > The next level of this would be something like notifying the committer
> > with a list of patches in the CF that a commit broke. I don't
> > immediately see how to integrate that with our
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 3:15 AM Greg Stark wrote:
> The next level of this would be something like notifying the committer
> with a list of patches in the CF that a commit broke. I don't
> immediately see how to integrate that with our workflow but I have
> seen something like this work well in a
The next level of this would be something like notifying the committer
with a list of patches in the CF that a commit broke. I don't
immediately see how to integrate that with our workflow but I have
seen something like this work well in a previous job. When committing
code you often went and
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 1:10 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
> > ... I suppose then someone might complain
> > that it should be clearer if a patch hasn't applied for a very long
> > time; suggestions for how to show that are welcome.
>
> Can you make the pop-up tooltip text read
Thomas Munro writes:
> ... I suppose then someone might complain
> that it should be clearer if a patch hasn't applied for a very long
> time; suggestions for how to show that are welcome.
Can you make the pop-up tooltip text read "Rebase needed since
-MM-DD"?
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 11:13 AM Thomas Munro wrote:
> I realised that part of Alvaro's complaint was probably caused by
> cfbot's refusal to show any useful information just because it
> couldn't apply a patch the last time it tried. A small improvement
> today: now it shows a ♲ symbol (with
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 12:44 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 04:28:02PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 4:19 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > > The only issue with this is that cfbot has squished all the commits into
> > > one, and lost the original commit
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 17.03.23 15:38, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Simplify find_my_exec by using realpath(3)
>> The problem with this one is that Peter would like it to do something
>> other than what I think it should do. Not sure how to resolve that.
> I have no objection to changing the
On 17.03.23 15:38, Tom Lane wrote:
Simplify find_my_exec by using realpath(3)
The problem with this one is that Peter would like it to do something
other than what I think it should do. Not sure how to resolve that.
I have no objection to changing the internal coding of the current
On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 04:28:02PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 4:19 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > The only issue with this is that cfbot has squished all the commits into
> > one, and lost the original commit messages (if any). I submitted
> > patches to address that
On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 4:19 PM Justin Pryzby wrote:
> The only issue with this is that cfbot has squished all the commits into
> one, and lost the original commit messages (if any). I submitted
> patches to address that but still waiting for feedback.
>
>
On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 02:43:38PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 1:26 PM Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > At this point, I'm going to suggest that reviewers should be open to the
> > idea of applying a submitted patch to some older Git commit in order to
> > review it. If
On Sat, Mar 18, 2023 at 1:26 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> At this point, I'm going to suggest that reviewers should be open to the
> idea of applying a submitted patch to some older Git commit in order to
> review it. If we have given feedback, then it's OK to put a patch as
> "waiting on author"
On 2023-Mar-17, Greg Stark wrote:
> I'm going to go ahead and do this today. Any of these patches that are
> "Waiting on Author" and haven't received any emails or status changes
> since March 1 I'm going to move out of the commitfest(*).
So I've come around to thinking that booting patches out
On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 at 10:39, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> You've listed a lot of small features here that still have time to
> get some love --- it's not like we're hard up against the end of the CF.
> If they'd been in Waiting on Author state for awhile, I'd agree with
> booting them, but not when
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 02:29:26PM -0400, Gregory Stark (as CFM) wrote:
> 1) Move it yourself to the next CF (or withdraw it)
> 2) Post to the list with any pending questions asking for specific
> feedback -- it's much more likely to get feedback than just a generic
> "here's a patch plz
Greg Stark writes:
>> These patches that are "Needs Review" and have received no comments at
>> all since before March 1st are these.
Just a couple of comments on ones that caught my eye:
>> * Simplify find_my_exec by using realpath(3)
The problem with this one is that Peter would like it to
Hi Greg,
> > These patches that are "Needs Review" and have received no comments at
> > all since before March 1st are these. If your patch is amongst this
> > list I would suggest any of:
> >
> > 1) Move it yourself to the next CF (or withdraw it)
> > 2) Post to the list with any pending
On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 at 14:29, Gregory Stark (as CFM)
wrote:
>
> These patches that are "Needs Review" and have received no comments at
> all since before March 1st are these. If your patch is amongst this
> list I would suggest any of:
>
> 1) Move it yourself to the next CF (or withdraw it)
> 2)
So, sorry I've been a bit under the weather but can concentrate on the
commitfest now. I tried to recapitulate the history but the activity
log only goes back a certain distance on the web. If I can log in to
the database I guess I could construct the history from sql queries if
it was important.
Sorry, I wasn't feeling very well since Friday. I'm still not 100% but
I'm going to try to do some triage this afternoon.
There are a few patches that need a rebase. And a few patches failing
Meson builds or autoconf stages -- I wonder if there's something
unrelated broken there?
But what I
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 03:47:17PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> The CF would begin in more or less 5 hours as of the moment of this
> message:
> https://www.timeanddate.com/time/zones/aoe
Note: I have switched this CF as "In Process" a few hours ago.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 01:45:27PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
> So I'm not sure if I'll be CFM this month but I'm assuming I will be
> at this point
Okay, that's OK for me! Thanks for helping out.
> The next pass would be to grab any patches not marked Ready for
> Committer and if they look
So I'm not sure if I'll be CFM this month but I'm assuming I will be
at this point
Regardless, Commitfest 2023-03 starts tomorrow!
So this is a good time to check your submitted patches and ensure
they're actually in building and don't need a rebase. Take a look at
http://cfbot.cputube.org/
61 matches
Mail list logo
