On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On the flip side, if we don't provide review to WIP patches during the
3rd commitfest, how do we expect to get anything close to committable on
the 1st commitfest of the next cycle?
I'm not sure exactly what you're going for
On Thu, 2011-02-10 at 09:46 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On the flip side, if we don't provide review to WIP patches during the
3rd commitfest, how do we expect to get anything close to committable on
the 1st commitfest of the
On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 15:10 -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
It's more than a bit sad... The RangeType change has the massive merit
of enabling some substantial development changes, where we can get rid
of whole classes of comparison clauses, and hopefully whole classes of
range errors. That was
pg...@j-davis.com (Jeff Davis) writes:
On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 15:10 -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
It's more than a bit sad... The RangeType change has the massive merit
of enabling some substantial development changes, where we can get rid
of whole classes of comparison clauses, and hopefully
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
- Range Types. This is a large patch which was submitted for the
first time to the last CommitFest of the cycle, and the first version
that had no open TODO items was posted yesterday, three-quarters of
the way through that last CommitFest. Some
2011/2/8 Steve Singer ssinger...@sympatico.ca:
On 11-02-07 10:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
- The PL/python extravaganza. I'm not really clear where we stand
with this. There are a lot of patches here.
Some of the patches have been committed a few others are ready (or almost
ready) for a
On 08/02/11 15:44, Hitoshi Harada wrote:
2011/2/8 Steve Singer ssinger...@sympatico.ca:
On 11-02-07 10:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
- The PL/python extravaganza. I'm not really clear where we stand
with this. There are a lot of patches here.
Some of the patches have been committed a few
sfr...@snowman.net (Stephen Frost) writes:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
- Range Types. This is a large patch which was submitted for the
first time to the last CommitFest of the cycle, and the first version
that had no open TODO items was posted yesterday, three-quarters of
On 11-02-08 10:07 AM, Jan Urbański wrote:
* custom SPI exceptions - I'd really like this one to go in, because it
allows writing UPSERT-kind functions in PL/Python very easily, and it's
just a handful of lines of code
I will try to do a review of this one (probably tomorrow night) since
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Chris Browne cbbro...@acm.org wrote:
sfr...@snowman.net (Stephen Frost) writes:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
- Range Types. This is a large patch which was submitted for the
first time to the last CommitFest of the cycle, and the first version
On Mon, Feb 07, 2011 at 10:37:06PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Chris Browne cbbro...@acm.org wrote:
It sure looks to me like there are going to be a bunch of items that,
based on the recognized policies, need to get deferred to 9.2, and the
prospects for Sync
On tis, 2011-02-08 at 00:16 -0500, Steve Singer wrote:
On 11-02-07 10:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
- The PL/python extravaganza. I'm not really clear where we stand
with this. There are a lot of patches here.
Some of the patches have been committed a few others are ready (or
almost
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 22:37 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
- Range Types. This is a large patch which was submitted for the
first time to the last CommitFest of the cycle, and the first version
that had no open TODO items was posted yesterday, three-quarters of
the way through that last
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:02 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Given how things worked, i.e. that people were not clear that 9.1
development had actually started, etc., I am again proposing that we
have one more CF starting March 15 to get this all cleaned up. Yes, I
know that wasn't
On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 06:57 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
- Range Types. This is a large patch which was submitted for the
first time to the last CommitFest of the cycle, and the first version
that had no open TODO items was posted yesterday,
* Jeff Davis (pg...@j-davis.com) wrote:
I appreciate the sentiment, but in addition to some cleanup, any patch
like this at least requires some discussion. It's a language change
we'll be supporting for a long time.
My feeling was that we have had at least some of that discussion this
past
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 02:04:04PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:02 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
Given how things worked, i.e. that people were not clear that 9.1
development had actually started, etc., I am again proposing that we
have one more CF starting
On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 11:56 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
It's a 5400 line patch that wasn't completed until the middle of the
current CommitFest. Nobody has ever submitted a major feature patch
of that size that got done in a single CommitFest, to my recollection,
or even half that size.
My
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Jeff Davis pg...@j-davis.com wrote:
On Mon, 2011-02-07 at 22:37 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
- Range Types. This is a large patch which was submitted for the
first time to the last CommitFest of the cycle, and the first version
that had no open TODO items was
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:13 PM, David Fetter da...@fetter.org wrote:
I agree that we have some problems in that area - particularly with
writeable CTEs - but prolonging the schedule isn't going to fix that
problem.
What is?
I think the best solution would probably be to find corporate
pg...@j-davis.com (Jeff Davis) writes:
On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 06:57 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
- Range Types. This is a large patch which was submitted for the
first time to the last CommitFest of the cycle, and the first version
that had no
This discussion reveals that it's time to start making some
discussions about what can be accomplished for 9.1 and what must be
postponed to 9.2. The big ones I think we should postpone are:
First off, I think that this is a little premature. As others have
pointed out, the unusual schedule
On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 14:25 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
The patch is a million little decisions: names, catalog structure,
interface, representation, general usability, grammar, functionality,
etc. Without some checkpoint, the chances that everyone agrees with all
of these decisions at the
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Chris Browne cbbro...@acm.org wrote:
It sure looks to me like there are going to be a bunch of items that,
based on the recognized policies, need to get deferred to 9.2, and the
prospects for Sync Rep getting into 9.1 don't look notably good to me.
It's
On 11-02-07 10:37 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
- The PL/python extravaganza. I'm not really clear where we stand
with this. There are a lot of patches here.
Some of the patches have been committed a few others are ready (or
almost ready) for a committer. The table function one is the only
25 matches
Mail list logo
