On 2017-04-03 22:18:21 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > To me this hasn't gotten even remotely enough performance evaluation. > > And I don't think it's fair to characterize it as pending since 2013, > > given it was essentially "waiting on author" for most of that. > > This is undeniably a patch which has been kicking around for a lot of > time without getting a lot of attention, and if it just keeps getting > punted down the road, it's never going to become committable.
Indeed, it's old. And it hasn't gotten enough timely feedback. But I don't think the wait time can meaningfully be measured by subtracting two dates: The first version of the patch, as a PoC, has been posted 2013-12-14, which then got a good amount of feedback & revisions, and then stalled till 2014-07-12. There a few back-and forths yielded a new version. >From 2014-09-15 till 2015-10-16 the patch stalled, waiting on its author. That version had open todos ([1]), as had the version from 2016-03-13 [2], which weren't addressed 2016-03-30 - unfortunately that was pretty much when the tree was frozen. 2016-09-13 a rebased patch was sent, some minor points were raised 2016-10-02 (unaddressed), a larger review was done 2016-12-01 ([5]), unaddressed till 2017-02-18. At that point we're in this thread. There's obviously some long waiting-on-author periods in there. And some long needs-review periods. > Alexander's questions upthread about what decisions the committer who > took an interest (Heikki) would prefer never really got an answer, for > example. I don't deny that there may be some work left to do here, > but I think blaming the author for a week's delay when this has been > ignored so often for so long is unfair. I'm not trying to blame Alexander for a week's worth of delay, at all. It's just that, well, we're past the original code-freeze date, three days before the "final" code freeze. I don't think fairness is something we can achieve at this point :(. Given the risk of regressions - demonstrated in this thread although partially adressed - and the very limited amount of benchmarking done, it seems unlikely that this is going to be merged. Regards, Andres [1] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdvhwMsG69exCRUGK3ms-ng0PSPcucH5FU6tAaM-qL-1%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com [2] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdvzjYGLTyA-8ib8UYnKLPrewd9Z%3DT4YJNCRWiHWHHweWw%40mail.gmail.com [3] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdtCcHZ-mLWzsFrRCvHpV1LPSaOGooMZ3sa40AkwR=7...@mail.gmail.com [4] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/capphfdvj1tdi2wa64zbbp5-yg-uzarxzk3k7j7zt-crx6ys...@mail.gmail.com [5] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoZapyHRm7NVyuyZ+yAV=u1a070bogre7pkgyraegr4...@mail.gmail.com [6] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfds1waRZ=NOmueYq0sx1ZSCnt+5QJvizT8ndT2=etze...@mail.gmail.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
