Tom, all, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > * Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW > > I concur with Stephen's assessment that this doesn't look well designed. > I think we should just mark it RWF for now.
I had meant to do that already, sorry about that, done now.
> * iteration over record in plpgsql
>
> I fear this one slipped through the cracks --- it's marked Waiting on
> Author in the CF app, but it looks like Pavel did submit an updated
> version after that marking was made. However, it's not a terribly
> significant feature and there was doubt as to whether we want it at
> all anyway. Suggest we just punt it to next CF at this point.
I had been interested but also thought it was waiting for a new
version. Doesn't look like I'll have time now.
> * Auditing extension
>
> I do not get the impression that there is consensus on this. Push to 9.6?
I've not seen much disagreement about what it provides recently, those
were dealt with a while ago. I agree with Robert that it needs more
work on documentation and comments and I've sent my thoughts about what
to improve in those areas over to David. I've reviewed it in various
forms and am hoping to commit it, unless there are objections.
> * RLS: row-level security, more review
>
> Stephen's baby.
I don't have anything pending on this at the moment. Post
feature-freeze I'm planning to spend time on bug hunting, documentation
improvements, etc, for this, UPSERT, and other things. If anyone is
aware of any outstanding issues here, please let me know.
> * Additional role attributes
>
> Is this ready to commit? Stephen's call.
I'm pretty happy with the latest version. Would be great for others to
weigh in on if they have any concerns about reserving the 'pg_' prefix
for system roles (or if they're fine with it, that'd be useful to know
too..). I'll also be improving the documentation for it.
> * catalog view to pg_hba.conf file
>
> Greg Stark is marked as committer of record on this.
I was hoping to look at that also, as I do think it'd be valuable to
have. The current patch needs rework though. I agree with Peter that
using "keyword_*" arrays is not a good approach and that it'd really be
better to have this in conjunction with a function that users could use
to see what row is returned. I might have time to work on it tomorrow,
if other things fall into place, but it's not going to be without
changes and perhaps that means it has to punt to 9.6.
> So there you have it. If everyone would go make decisions on the patches
> that they are the most obvious committer for, we could get those taken
> care of one way or the other pretty quickly. As for the ones I proposed
> pushing to 9.6, any committer who feels differently can pick those up,
> else I'll go change their status in the CF app tomorrow or so.
Done, for my part.
Thanks!
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
