On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> ... Most urgently, I believe we need a bit more committer bandwidth. I >> believe that I could tackle either the SSI patches or the pg_upgrade & >> typed tables issue, or I could try to make a dent in the collation >> stuff, but I don't think I can cover two of those areas and I >> definitely can't cover all three. > > I intend to return to the collations issues as soon as I've knocked off > the GUC assign-hooks patch. That's taking longer than I thought (there > are a *lot* of assign hooks) but I think I'll be able to finish it today > or tomorrow. I have yet to read any of the SSI code, so I can't offer > much help in that area. > >> The other minor issues are: > >> - do latches have memory ordering problems? I think the consensus is >> that they work OK the way we're using them right now, so maybe we can >> just drop this item, unless someone wants to pontificate further on >> it. > > I think this can be left as an open issue for now, to remind us that > some harder stress-testing on affected platforms would be a good thing.
OK, fair enough. >> - generate_series boundary issue - I think this isn't a new regression >> so it's probably not a blocker for beta1, but we might still want to >> try to fix it. > > Again, there's no reason that can't stay on the open items list past > beta1. We may or may not choose to fix it for 9.1, but it's not a beta > blocker. I agree. But again, that's not really what I'm focusing on - the collations stuff, the typed tables patch, and SSI all need serious looking at, and I'm not sure who is going to pick all that up. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
