Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> >> I think his reply states that. The long and short is, what Tom was
> >> concerned about is true and Heikki has confirmed it. This patch as nice
> >> as it would be to have, isn't ready for prime time. It is time to push
>
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>> I think his reply states that. The long and short is, what Tom was
>> concerned about is true and Heikki has confirmed it. This patch as nice
>> as it would be to have, isn't ready for prime time. It is time to push
>> this patch to 8.5, close u
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 7:09 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> I think his reply states that. The long and short is, what Tom was
> concerned about is true and Heikki has confirmed it. This patch as nice
> as it would be to have, isn't ready for prime time. It is time to push
> this patch to 8.5, clos
Josh Berkus wrote:
Agreed. Simon has finished the pending items he had four weeks ago,
but the code clearly isn't ready for commit yet as new issues are
cropping up. And I think the way subtransactions are handled, which
has been a difficult part of the patch all along, still needs more
thinki
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 22:11 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Heikki,
>
> > Agreed. Simon has finished the pending items he had four weeks ago, but
> > the code clearly isn't ready for commit yet as new issues are cropping
> > up. And I think the way subtransactions are handled, which has been a
> >
Heikki,
Agreed. Simon has finished the pending items he had four weeks ago, but
the code clearly isn't ready for commit yet as new issues are cropping
up. And I think the way subtransactions are handled, which has been a
difficult part of the patch all along, still needs more thinking.
Are t
Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
As for when it *will* be committable --- Heikki is saying two weeks
if no new problems crop up, but given the rate at which new problems
have been found so far, what are the odds of that? We've seen this
movie before.
Since
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 14:43 +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Tom originally stated (as I recall, no flames please) that we would wait
> > for 2 weeks for the hot standby stuff. It has now been four. That is
> > what I and I believe Robert Haas are talking about.
>
> Thanks,
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 14:17 +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 22:56 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>
> Since it's going to take us two weeks to clean up the other loose ends
> anyway, there's no harm in letting Simon and Hei
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 14:17 +0900, KaiGai Kohei wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 22:56 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> >>> Since it's going to take us two weeks to clean up the other loose ends
> >>> anyway, there's no harm in letting Simon and Heikki try to complete the
>
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 22:56 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>>> Since it's going to take us two weeks to clean up the other loose ends
>>> anyway, there's no harm in letting Simon and Heikki try to complete the
>>> patch by then. But I'll happily lay a side bet with you about
On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 22:56 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Since it's going to take us two weeks to clean up the other loose ends
> > anyway, there's no harm in letting Simon and Heikki try to complete the
> > patch by then. But I'll happily lay a side bet with you about what the
> > situation wil
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page writes:
>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I already pointed out some pretty serious problems with the updatable
>>> views patch. Are you claiming they are trivial to fix?
>
>> Not at all. I think the deferral of
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 15:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> >> I think both of these deserve at least a glance by a committer before
> >> bouncing them.
>
> > While we're at it, I think the Ramon Lawrence/Bryce Cutt patch to
>
Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> I think both of these deserve at least a glance by a committer before
>> bouncing them.
> While we're at it, I think the Ramon Lawrence/Bryce Cutt patch to
> "Improve Performance of Multi-Batch Hash Join for Skewed Data
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 16:01 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should reject the rest and
>> prepare a release.
>
> BTree-GIN has been ready for committer review for quite some time. It
[...]
> Kennet
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 16:01 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should reject the rest and
> prepare a release.
BTree-GIN has been ready for committer review for quite some time. It
has been mostly-ready for much longer: the only real code change since
s
Dave Page writes:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Nobody has suggested bouncing HS; there is only a debate about how soon
>> it's likely to be appliable. Any company who imagined they had a
>> guarantee about it getting into 8.4 is simply misguided.
> I was complaining abo
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page writes:
>> Not basing our release schedule on our commitments to shareholders is
>> an entirely different thing to treating sponsors of major features
>> like crap by arbitrarily bouncing the patches they've paid to have
>> properly dev
Dave Page writes:
> Not basing our release schedule on our commitments to shareholders is
> an entirely different thing to treating sponsors of major features
> like crap by arbitrarily bouncing the patches they've paid to have
> properly developed within the community process with no good reason.
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 18:46 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Lastly, the last time a developer told me two weeks it was 3 months.
> > Unless we get a written development plan that describes specifically
> > what, when, why and how long I am severely suspect that Heikki
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Lastly, the last time a developer told me two weeks it was 3 months.
Unless we get a written development plan that describes specifically
what, when, why and how long I am severely suspect that Heikki or Simon
have a clue on an actual deliverable time line (no offense guys)
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 January 2009 17:47:52 Dave Page wrote:
>> The primary case that I'm objecting to is HS which you've
>> been saying will take 10 - 12 months to complete having by your own
>> admission not looked at the code or followed the di
On Tuesday 27 January 2009 17:47:52 Dave Page wrote:
> The primary case that I'm objecting to is HS which you've
> been saying will take 10 - 12 months to complete having by your own
> admission not looked at the code or followed the discussion
> particularly closely.
Is there another committer or
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 11:23 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page writes:
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I already pointed out some pretty serious problems with the updatable
> >> views patch. Are you claiming they are trivial to fix?
>
> Even if the improbable happens
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Since it's going to take us two weeks to clean up the other loose ends
> anyway, there's no harm in letting Simon and Heikki try to complete the
> patch by then. But I'll happily lay a side bet with you about what the
> situation will be two week
Dave Page writes:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I already pointed out some pretty serious problems with the updatable
>> views patch. Are you claiming they are trivial to fix?
> Not at all. I think the deferral of that particular patch is the
> correct thing to do becaus
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 15:51 +, Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Joshua D. Drake
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 14:10 +, Dave Page wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >>
> >> > Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should r
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 14:10 +, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>
>> > Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should reject the rest and
>> > prepare a release.
>>
>> That will send a
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 14:10 +, Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> > Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should reject the rest and
> > prepare a release.
>
> That will send a fine message to those companies that have sponsored
> developm
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Dave Page writes:
>
>> We must at least have the solid belief (of a committer that that has
>> done a proper review) that a patch cannot be polished in an
>> appropriate timeframe,
>
> I already pointed out some pretty serious problems with the u
Dave Page writes:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should reject the rest and
>> prepare a release.
> That will send a fine message to those companies that have sponsored
> development work - that we will arbitrarily reje
Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>> Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should reject the rest and
>> prepare a release.
>
> That will send a fine message to those companies that have sponsored
> development work - that we will arbitrarily r
Dave Page wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> wrote:
>
>> I'm sure it depends on the user. Users that are more interested in the
>> features we already have in the bag like window functions and WITH-clause,
>> will obviously prefer to release earlier without hot standb
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Updatable views is reverted. I agree that we should reject the rest and
> prepare a release.
That will send a fine message to those companies that have sponsored
development work - that we will arbitrarily reject large patches that
have
On Sunday 25 January 2009 19:06:50 Tom Lane wrote:
> Particularly with regard to hot standby, which by any sane reading was
> not close to being committable on 1 November (a fortiori from the fact
> that it's *still* not committable despite large amounts of later work).
> I'm also feeling that we a
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>> how can we expect this to change for 8.5? Can anyone point
>> out something Simon did wrong in this process?
> Not really, except maybe started 6 months too late. Big patches simply
> take a long time to mature.
Yeah, exactly. When we dec
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 12:05 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 13:35 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >
> > > Well, big features that land early in the release cycle don't delay the
> > > release. Just the ones that are submitted in the last commit
Robert Haas wrote:
At a minimum, I think the following patches from the CommitFest wiki
should be returned with feedback or rejected:
1. SE-PostgreSQL. We handled this one badly, but there's not enough
time to fix it now. 8.5.
Unacceptable.
Please make it clear how many items should be fixed
>>> Robert Haas wrote:
> Still, I agree that if there's anything we should be putting our
> effort into as a community right now, it's this feature. If we got
> Hot Standby in the next release and everything else in the
CommitFest
> got bumped, I think a lot of people would consider that a good
Jonah H. Harris wrote:
Looking forward, if no one
wanted to review these patches in November,
I did, and many others were active in the discussion too.
and seemingly no one wants to review them now,
I do. Thank you for your appreciation :-(.
how can we expect this to change for 8.5? Can
Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 13:35 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
> > Well, big features that land early in the release cycle don't delay the
> > release. Just the ones that are submitted in the last commit fest.
>
> Has that ever happened? :-)
>
> I don't think its chance w
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 13:35 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 12:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >> Any release with big
> > features in it will take longer, whether you wait a year, or not.
>
> Well, big features that land early in the release cycle
> Simon has put a lot of time into Hot Standby and has followed the
> pseudo-defacto community process from design through what he believes to be
> near-completion; he can't be sure of completion until someone reviews his
> work.
I think this is a fair critique.
> Yet, albeit with almost no revie
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 12:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Particularly with regard to hot standby, which by any sane reading was
> not close to being committable on 1 November (a fortiori from the fact
> that it's *still* not committable despite large amounts of later
> work).
I've wasted much time i
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Particularly with regard to hot standby, which by any sane reading was
> not close to being committable on 1 November (a fortiori from the fact
> that it's *still* not committable despite large amounts of later work).
While I haven't follwed e
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> I'm sure it depends on the user. Users that are more interested in the
> features we already have in the bag like window functions and WITH-clause,
> will obviously prefer to release earlier without hot standby. And users that
> want h
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 12:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Any release with big
features in it will take longer, whether you wait a year, or not.
Well, big features that land early in the release cycle don't delay the
release. Just the ones that are submitted in the last commit f
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 12:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> If we want to ensure that 8.5 development opens soon, what we have to
> do is reject those two patches, revert updatable views, and finish up
> the other stuff (which is all small and could likely be dealt with in
> a week or two). That puts us
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 12:06 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> If we want to ensure that 8.5 development opens soon, what we have to
> do is reject those two patches, revert updatable views, and finish up
> the other stuff (which is all small and could likely be dealt with in
> a week or two). That puts u
Robert Haas wrote:
I would, however, like to see us make a commitment to actually review
SE-PostgreSQL. There was some talk that we might not want to include
this feature in core at all, and if that is the case then I think it
is long past time to make that decision. Assuming that isn't the
cas
Tom Lane wrote:
> and I'm beginning to think that we need to invoke that provision.
> Particularly with regard to hot standby, which by any sane reading was
> not close to being committable on 1 November (a fortiori from the fact
> that it's *still* not committable despite large amounts of later wo
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> and I'm beginning to think that we need to invoke that provision.
> Particularly with regard to hot standby, which by any sane reading was
> not close to being committable on 1 November (a fortiori from the fact
> that it's *still* not committa
> and I'm beginning to think that we need to invoke that provision.
> Particularly with regard to hot standby, which by any sane reading was
> not close to being committable on 1 November (a fortiori from the fact
> that it's *still* not committable despite large amounts of later work).
> I'm also
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> Yeah... I'm not sure what to do about that, but as Tom pointed out,
>> it has the disadvantage that all of these massive changes are getting
>> put into the tree just before we start beta.
> Well, it is less a problem than in previous releases, so th
55 matches
Mail list logo
