Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-25 Thread Jim Nasby
On Sep 22, 2006, at 2:50 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: And how were you planning to tell if a patch cam from a regular? Hopefully you weren't planning on blindly trusting the from header. Misuse of the build farm in a way the effects other sites could get the project a big black eye, so you

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-22 Thread Bruno Wolff III
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 22:22:12 -0700, Tom Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's a worthwhile point. How many patches come from the general community vs out of the blue? Patches from regulars could probably get a free pass, which might cut down the review burden substantially. And how

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-22 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 11:58:04AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 22:22:12 -0700, Tom Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's a worthwhile point. How many patches come from the general community vs out of the blue? Patches from regulars could probably get a

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-22 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 11:58:04AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 22:22:12 -0700, Tom Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's a worthwhile point. How many patches come from the general community vs out of the blue? Patches from regulars could

Re: guc comment changes (was Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta)

2006-09-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Am Freitag, 15. September 2006 20:32 schrieb Tom Lane: I've finally taken a close look at this patch, and I don't like it any more than Peter does. The refactoring might or might not be good at its core, but as presented it is horrid. Joachim Wieland is in the process of reworking the

Re: guc comment changes (was Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta)

2006-09-18 Thread Joachim Wieland
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 01:13:45PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Joachim Wieland is in the process of reworking the original feature patch (resetting commented out parameters) in a much more compact form. But it turns out that there are a couple of very tricky situations involving custom

Re: guc comment changes (was Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta)

2006-09-18 Thread Tom Lane
Joachim Wieland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have the patch almost ready in the described form, if there is any chance it will make it into 8.2 I will clean it up and post it ASAP but Peter wrote me that chances are close to zero and so I stopped working on it for now. If you'd mentioned it a

guc comment changes (was Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta)

2006-09-15 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That does not mean that the patch is bad, and I certainly support the feature change. But I can't efficiently review the patch. If someone else wants to do it, go ahead. I've finally taken a close look at this patch, and I don't like it any more

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-14 Thread Markus Schaber
Hi, Jeremy, Jeremy Drake wrote: Another possibility would be to test these patches in some kind of virtual machine that gets blown away every X days, so that even if someone did get something malicious in there it wouldn't last long. Or just have a snapshot which is reverted after each

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-13 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 09:26:36PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: I just spent 1/2 hour fixing the multi-value UPDATE patch for the code drift caused by UPDATE/RETURNING. The patch is a simple grammar macro. Any coder could have taken that, reviewed it, and applied it, but no one did.

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-13 Thread Tom Dunstan
Jim C. Nasby wrote: There's been talk in the past of having some kind of system that automatically attempts to build things that are in the patch queue, both as an initial sanity-check and as a means to detect when something bit-rots... perhaps it's becoming worthwhile to set that up. After

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-13 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Dunstan wrote: The idea was that patch authors could either run it manually or stick it in a cron so they could get emailed when the patch no longer cleanly applied, or when the patched source failed in make, make check etc. Obviously my motivation was to keep the enum patch up to date

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-13 Thread Tom Dunstan
Alvaro Herrera wrote: I submitted a patch to Andrew, but it needed a couple of tweaks (disabling patching on vpath builds, for example) and I don't think I ever got around to resubmitting it, but if there's more general interest I'll do so. Huh, why would you disable patching on vpath

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-13 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Dunstan wrote: Alvaro Herrera wrote: I submitted a patch to Andrew, but it needed a couple of tweaks (disabling patching on vpath builds, for example) and I don't think I ever got around to resubmitting it, but if there's more general interest I'll do so. Huh, why would you disable

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-13 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Huh, but the patch can be applied with -R to revert it after the buildfarm run ... the one problem I can see is if the patch fails for some reason; for which I'd suggest running a patch --dry-run as a first step, checking that it applies cleanly, and only continue in

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-13 Thread Tom Dunstan
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Tom's idea of making a temp copy of the repo and patching that would work, but if you're going to do that why do a vpath build anyway? In this case, the answer is to make sure that your patch works when *someone else* does a vpath build. Regarding the idea of a list

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-13 Thread Tom Dunstan
Jim C. Nasby wrote: There's been talk in the past of having some kind of system that automatically attempts to build things that are in the patch queue, both as an initial sanity-check and as a means to detect when something bit-rots... perhaps it's becoming worthwhile to set that up. After

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-13 Thread Jim Nasby
On Sep 13, 2006, at 6:56 PM, Tom Dunstan wrote: Regarding the idea of a list of approved patch authorisers, don't we have such a group now? i.e. committers. Right, and if committers or others are willing to put in the time required to verify that patches aren't nasty before going onto the

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-13 Thread Tom Dunstan
Jim Nasby wrote: That's something I'd be willing to do. And for many people that aren't committers but are still trusted in the community, we could probably bypass the checking. That's a worthwhile point. How many patches come from the general community vs out of the blue? Patches from

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-13 Thread Jeremy Drake
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Tom Dunstan wrote: Another possibility would be to test these patches in some kind of virtual machine that gets blown away every X days, so that even if someone did get something malicious in there it wouldn't last long. Or just have a snapshot which is reverted after

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-13 Thread Tom Dunstan
Jeremy Drake wrote: On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, Tom Dunstan wrote: I was under the impression that most VM products are x86 centric, which wouldn't lead to huge amounts of diversity in the buildfarm results. At least, not as far as architecture goes. I have played with QEmu (www.qemu.org) which is

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-12 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 03:28:36PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: Overall, I really think 8.2 is going to be an excellent release. I wish autovacuum could have been enabled by default and I'd just like to ask, now and I'll try to remember again once 8.2 is out, please let's turn it on by default

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-07 Thread Carlo Florendo
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Joshua D. Drake wrote: It does not mean all those features are useful, they definitely are. I am just trying to look at it from at: WHIZ* BANG* POW* perspective. Holy crap, Batman! This database can do INSERT INTO foo VALUES (1,1, 'so long'), (42, 2, 'and

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-07 Thread Kevin Brown
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: Well, it's taken us the full month to get this far through the queue, so I'd sure like to have more people on board reviewing next time. Alvaro helped but I miss Neil Conway, and some other people have helped in the

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-06 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 07:42:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: The hard part of this problem is finding a convenient way to capture status data out of the community's conversations. I think when you find a solution to that, you'll notice that email is not the problem. In private groups (like

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-06 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 07:42:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: The hard part of this problem is finding a convenient way to capture status data out of the community's conversations. I think when you find a solution to that, you'll notice that email is not the problem.

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-04 Thread Lukas Kahwe Smith
Tom Lane wrote: AFAICS the bottom line here is that we need some intelligent filtering. In the short run I doubt that we can have that except through human gruntwork to filter the mail traffic and update a tracker database. Maybe after we see such a system in operation for awhile, we can start

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-04 Thread Lukas Kahwe Smith
Andrew Dunstan wrote: I spent months on a working party on these and similar issues a few years back, in a commercial setting. One of the big issues is when you start tracking something. Bugs are a pretty simple case. Features are much harder to handle. Someone comes up with an idea. There is

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-04 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Am Montag, 4. September 2006 04:10 schrieb Bruce Momjian: Are you saying you don't like the patch, That's it. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-04 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bruce Momjian wrote: Oh, lots of grunt work. I can see that working, but at a high cost. I doubt it. Let's just start with bugs, since that's the easy case anyway. Our real volume is pretty low, so the cost of

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-04 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bruce Momjian wrote: Without a reply from Peter, I have to assume the patch is valid. To make it more explicit: I think the patch is stupid, but if someone wants to review it, go ahead. But I am not comfortable with the if no one objects, I'll

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bruce Momjian wrote: Without a reply from Peter, I have to assume the patch is valid. To make it more explicit: I think the patch is stupid, but if someone wants to review it, go ahead. But I am not comfortable with the if no

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-04 Thread Bruce Momjian
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: How many times do I have to say this: IT IS NOT A REFACTOR PATCH AS REPORTED BY THE AUTHOR, AND PETER HAS NOT REFUTED THAT. The initial patch was the feature plus some code refactoring included. That was what the author said. I asked him to

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian wrote: Why aren't more people involved? Is this such a thankless task? I am starting to think so. I can tell you exactly what my problem is. The tools are terrible. In projects with a useful issue tracking system I can take small chunks out of my day to contribute to

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Lukas Kahwe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For example I have no expertise in coding on Postgres, but I think I would be able to collect information from this mailinglist (like specs, url's etc.) and put them in some issue tracker or wiki. I have done exactly the same

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua D. Drake wrote: I just spent 1/2 hour fixing the multi-value UPDATE patch for the code drift caused by UPDATE/RETURNING. The patch is a simple grammar macro. Any coder could have taken that, reviewed it, and applied it, but no one did. Perhaps that's because nobody but you

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
bruce wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: Peter has made it pretty clear that he didn't care for the refactorization aspect of that patch. Peter asked why it was done, a good answer was given, and Peter did not reply. Au

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian wrote: Without a reply from Peter, I have to assume the patch is valid. To make it more explicit: I think the patch is stupid, but if someone wants to review it, go ahead. But I am not comfortable with the if no one objects, I'll just commit it mode that is sometimes going on.

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 03:40:40PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: This is also an interesting example for a tracker. If we had one, all discussion on the patch would be in one place, but I am thinking that would require all posting to happen in a browser, or somehow have emails tagged to attach

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Gregory Stark
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes: I assume other bug trackers have a similar feature... Sadly no. That's precisely why I was pushing debbugs so hard earlier. The weakest of them will send a content-free email saying *something* happened to your issue and you have to click a

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Gregory Stark wrote: Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes: I assume other bug trackers have a similar feature... Sadly no. That's precisely why I was pushing debbugs so hard earlier. The weakest of them will send a content-free email saying *something* happened to

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Gregory Stark
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As for remarks about old school unix hackers not liking web interfaces, I think Tom's recent remarks relating to the 21st century were more than apposite. I like web interfaces well enough for the things they're good at. Replacing e-mail is not one

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As for remarks about old school unix hackers not liking web interfaces, I think Tom's recent remarks relating to the 21st century were more than apposite. I don't see a big problem with using a web interface to search for information --- they're good

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As for remarks about old school unix hackers not liking web interfaces, I think Tom's recent remarks relating to the 21st century were more than apposite. I don't see a big problem with using a web interface to search for information

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As for remarks about old school unix hackers not liking web interfaces, I think Tom's recent remarks relating to the 21st century were more than apposite. I don't see a big problem with using a web interface to search for

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Without a reply from Peter, I have to assume the patch is valid. To make it more explicit: I think the patch is stupid, but if someone wants to review it, go ahead. But I am not comfortable with the if no one objects, I'll just commit it mode

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: -- Start of PGP signed section. On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 03:40:40PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: This is also an interesting example for a tracker. If we had one, all discussion on the patch would be in one place, but I am thinking that would require all posting

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Gregory Stark wrote: Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes: I assume other bug trackers have a similar feature... Sadly no. That's precisely why I was pushing debbugs so hard earlier. Oh. That is bad. The weakest of them will send a content-free email saying *something*

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As for remarks about old school unix hackers not liking web interfaces, I think Tom's recent remarks relating to the 21st century were more than apposite. I don't see a big problem with using a web interface to search for

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh, so the bug is tracked by being part of the email reply list. That is a good idea. Now, how does that get assigned for non-bugs, like patches? Does any email sent to the lists that doesn't already have a bug number get one? That might be really

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Bruce Momjian wrote: Oh, so the bug is tracked by being part of the email reply list. That is a good idea. Now, how does that get assigned for non-bugs, like patches? Does any email sent to the lists that doesn't already have a bug number get one? That might be really valuable. It

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anyway, let me reiterate: bz has at least the start of an email reply facility, and making that work if it doesn't already should not be beyond us. I agree that starting from scratch seems like a good way to waste a lot of time. I don't have a

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: AFAICS the bottom line here is that we need some intelligent filtering. In the short run I doubt that we can have that except through human gruntwork to filter the mail traffic and update a tracker database. Maybe after we see such a system in operation for awhile, we can

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oh, so the bug is tracked by being part of the email reply list. That is a good idea. Now, how does that get assigned for non-bugs, like patches? Does any email sent to the lists that doesn't already have a bug number get one?

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Bruce Momjian wrote: Oh, lots of grunt work. I can see that working, but at a high cost. I doubt it. Let's just start with bugs, since that's the easy case anyway. Our real volume is pretty low, so the cost of maintaining it should not be high. I am assuming we would not be including

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Oh, lots of grunt work. I can see that working, but at a high cost. I doubt it. Let's just start with bugs, since that's the easy case anyway. Our real volume is pretty low, so the cost of maintaining it should not be high. I am assuming we

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bruce Momjian wrote: Oh, lots of grunt work. I can see that working, but at a high cost. I doubt it. Let's just start with bugs, since that's the easy case anyway. Our real volume is pretty low, so the cost of maintaining it should not be high. I

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-03 Thread Joshua D. Drake
This is not that far different from the premise upon which you built the buildfarm: that there were people out there able to provide machine resources and a certain amount of admin time. The resources this project requires are not those exactly, but why shouldn't we expect that some people

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Lukas Kahwe Smith
Andrew Dunstan wrote: It would make the process more transparent, which is something several people have expressed a desire for. Yes, the processes seems to work by having two of the most important people waste time on getting information anyone else could collect, or that the developer

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Lukas Kahwe Smith
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: For example I have no expertise in coding on Postgres, but I think I would be able to collect information from this mailinglist (like specs, url's etc.) and put them in some issue tracker or wiki. I have done exactly the same for PHP [1] (though there are rarely specs

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread David Fetter
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 10:13:07PM -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote: On 9/1/06, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I pummelled Jonah over the recursive query patch. He did. Trust me on this... think I still have some bruises too :) That wasn't productive. Getting it out in public that your

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread David Fetter
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 09:46:02PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: It pulls my a mailbox file I use, and it does instant updates as soon as I change it. It is a URL. Why do people care where it is? The complaint has been that not enough

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 09:00:35AM +0200, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: Actually I should add that I went ahead and created the PHP todo list on my own, without any official blessing and one by one internals developer have joined. Now its actively used in the entire release process. That is the

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: I remember something about setting up a wiki for a todo list and pie in the sky list. I thought it had promise, but until the wiki is there we won't know... I think the wiki is the prerequisite for many ideas about alternative tracking and documentation

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Robert Treat
On Saturday 02 September 2006 07:14, David Fetter wrote: On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 09:46:02PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: It pulls my a mailbox file I use, and it does instant updates as soon as I change it. It is a URL. Why do people care

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Tom Lane
Lukas Kahwe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For example I have no expertise in coding on Postgres, but I think I would be able to collect information from this mailinglist (like specs, url's etc.) and put them in some issue tracker or wiki. I have done exactly the same for PHP [1] (though

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Tom Lane
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here's a completely novel idea: accept incremental patches. I don't think it's as novel as all that --- personally I've always preferred to tackle large projects incrementally. I've been bitten by having stuff rejected because there was no immediate

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Theo Schlossnagle
On Sep 2, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here's a completely novel idea: accept incremental patches. I don't think it's as novel as all that --- personally I've always preferred to tackle large projects incrementally. I think that accepting

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Tom Lane
Theo Schlossnagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Additionally, what problem is accepting incremental patches supposed to solve? Keeping the individual patches reviewable is one useful goal. We may be talking at cross-purposes here. The sort of thing I think Alvaro is imagining is something like

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Robert Treat
On Friday 01 September 2006 19:42, Tom Lane wrote: Gavin Sherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Tom Lane wrote: My feeling is that we ought to bounce bitmap indexes and updatable views as not being ready, accept all the contrib stuff, and try to get the other items done in

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Tom Lane wrote: Theo Schlossnagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Additionally, what problem is accepting incremental patches supposed to solve? Keeping the individual patches reviewable is one useful goal. We may be talking at cross-purposes here. The sort of thing I think Alvaro is imagining

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Lukas Kahwe Smith
Robert Treat wrote: No offense, a whole lot of this thread seems to be positioned that way, but the real problem seems to be we do not have enough patch reviewers. ISTM the questions we should be asking are who can actually help out with patch review and then ask those people why they

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Bruce Momjian
Robert Treat wrote: On Saturday 02 September 2006 07:14, David Fetter wrote: On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 09:46:02PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: It pulls my a mailbox file I use, and it does instant updates as soon as I change it. It is

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Lukas Kahwe Smith
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: I remember something about setting up a wiki for a todo list and pie in the sky list. I thought it had promise, but until the wiki is there we won't know... I think the wiki is the prerequisite for many ideas about alternative tracking

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Bruce Momjian
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: Robert Treat wrote: No offense, a whole lot of this thread seems to be positioned that way, but the real problem seems to be we do not have enough patch reviewers. ISTM the questions we should be asking are who can actually help out with patch review

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Greg Sabino Mullane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Holy crap, Batman! This database can do INSERT INTO foo VALUES (1,1, 'so long'), (42, 2, 'and thanks'), (142857, 3, 'for all the fish') now! We should be talking to more people about that! That will make some MySQL users happy at least a

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: I remember something about setting up a wiki for a todo list and pie in the sky list. I thought it had promise, but until the wiki is there we won't know... I think the wiki is the prerequisite for many ideas

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Lukas Kahwe Smith
Joshua D. Drake wrote: That wiki is wrong. :) It was set up wrong and configured wrong. It was supposed to be for developers only. There is also another wiki that is a trac based that was set up at dave pages request (for slaves_to_www). Setup something better, until then we can start

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Bruce Momjian
Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: Robert Treat wrote: No offense, a whole lot of this thread seems to be positioned that way, but the real problem seems to be we do not have enough patch reviewers. ISTM the questions we should be asking

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Lukas Kahwe Smith
Bruce Momjian wrote: Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: Robert Treat wrote: No offense, a whole lot of this thread seems to be positioned that way, but the real problem seems to be we do not have enough patch reviewers. ISTM the questions we should be asking are who can actually help out with patch

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 06:18:13PM +0200, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: We have a wiki already: http://wiki.postgresql.org/ I must have missed the annoucement, oh well... Now I'm only familiar with twiki so maybe this sounds silly but: Does it support sections? Like can you have a developer

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Lukas Kahwe Smith
Bruce Momjian wrote: It seems that you have been the only busy bee so far, and we definitely need more for this to work. Yea, I was afraid that was the answer. :-( But we have a few volunteers, like me for example. Now don't say I was afraid that was the answer again or I might feel

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Dave Page
On 2/9/06 17:18, Lukas Kahwe Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Eisentraut wrote: Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: I remember something about setting up a wiki for a todo list and pie in the sky list. I thought it had promise, but until the wiki is there we won't know... I think the

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 06:18:13PM +0200, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: We have a wiki already: http://wiki.postgresql.org/ I must have missed the annoucement, oh well... Now I'm only familiar with twiki so maybe this sounds silly but: wiki.postgresql.org is dead.

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 06:38:30PM +0100, Dave Page wrote: The wiki will be going shortly as it's not been setup in the way that was agreed, nor is it being used for it's intended purpose. I'll put it right when I get time from dealing with releases of everything I seem to be involved in. I

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Dave Page
On 2/9/06 20:16, Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org wrote: On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 06:38:30PM +0100, Dave Page wrote: The wiki will be going shortly as it's not been setup in the way that was agreed, nor is it being used for it's intended purpose. I'll put it right when I get time

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... The GUC comment/default patch had tons of emails, but no other committers got involved to review or commit the patch. Peter, who knows GUC well, looked at it, but said he didn't review it enough. Peter has made it pretty clear that he didn't care

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ... The GUC comment/default patch had tons of emails, but no other committers got involved to review or commit the patch. Peter, who knows GUC well, looked at it, but said he didn't review it enough. Peter has made it pretty

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Joshua D. Drake
I just spent 1/2 hour fixing the multi-value UPDATE patch for the code drift caused by UPDATE/RETURNING. The patch is a simple grammar macro. Any coder could have taken that, reviewed it, and applied it, but no one did. Perhaps that's because nobody but you wanted it to go in. We got tons

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-02 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: Peter has made it pretty clear that he didn't care for the refactorization aspect of that patch. Peter asked why it was done, a good answer was given, and Peter did not reply. Au contraire, he's reiterated since then that he didn't

[HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-01 Thread Tom Lane
(I've already bounced this off the core committee, but it's time for wider discussion.) September is upon us and it doesn't seem like we are ready to ship a beta. I think it's time to start making some hard choices. In the main code I see these outstanding features/patches: * bitmap indexes *

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-01 Thread Joshua D. Drake
My feeling is that we ought to bounce bitmap indexes and updatable views as not being ready, accept all the contrib stuff, and try to get the other items done in time for a beta at, say, the end of next week. I'm not thrilled about postponing those two large items till 8.3, but we are a month

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-01 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: September is upon us and it doesn't seem like we are ready to ship a beta. I think it's time to start making some hard choices. In the main code I see these outstanding features/patches: * bitmap indexes * updatable views IMHO these two should be bounced. They are big

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-01 Thread Josh Berkus
Tom, September is upon us and it doesn't seem like we are ready to ship a beta. I think it's time to start making some hard choices. In the main code I see these outstanding features/patches: * bitmap indexes * updatable views * GUC variable reload + refactoring (previously applied and

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-01 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: My feeling is that we ought to bounce bitmap indexes and updatable views as not being ready, accept all the contrib stuff, and try to get the other items done in time for a beta at, say, the end of next week. I agree with bouncing these to get the beta

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-01 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com writes: Can you be a little clearer on which things are non-working patches, and which things are pending due to lack of review? The only things I currently want to reject as not having provided a timely patch are bitmap indexes and updatable views. The other

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-01 Thread Tom Lane
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My feeling is that we ought to bounce bitmap indexes and updatable views as not being ready, accept all the contrib stuff, and try to get the other items done in time for a beta at, say, the end of next week. I know there is a lot of backend work that

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-01 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Josh said nearly the same in core's discussion, but come now. The updateable-view patch (in its current form) does not offer *one single thing* you can't do today, indeed for many PG releases past; it just saves writing out some tedious rules. Sure, I can write the rules, you can write the

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-01 Thread Bruce Momjian
Josh Berkus wrote: Tom, September is upon us and it doesn't seem like we are ready to ship a beta. I think it's time to start making some hard choices. In the main code I see these outstanding features/patches: * bitmap indexes * updatable views * GUC variable reload +

Re: [HACKERS] Getting a move on for 8.2 beta

2006-09-01 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: I'm all for bouncing stuff that's not ready to go, but bouncing stuff because we haven't recruited enough code reviewers is just bad practice. Well, it's taken us the full month to get this far through the queue, so I'd sure like to have more people on board reviewing

  1   2   >