CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Subject | CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04 |
Date | |
Msg-id | AANLkTi=wM6VU5kO2d83PbB4QTAMaB1fMxMzOP7kHL2Lf@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
Responses |
Re: CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04
Re: CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04 Re: CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04 |
List | pgsql-hackers |
Here's where I think we are with this CommitFest. We have committed 45 patches and returned with feedback or rejected 23. There are 30 remaining patches, every single one of which has been reviewed. 20 of those are marked Ready for Committer; 5 are marked Waiting on Author; 5 are marked Needs Review. However, again, even the ones that are marked as Needs Review have in fact been reviewed multiple times, in many cases by multiple people. Thanks to all who have contributed to the reviewing effort, especially Stephen Frost, Hitoshi Hirada, Alex Hunsaker, Noah Misch, and Itagaki Takahiro. I respectfully submit that every patch which is not yet Ready for Committer is in that state not because of any neglect on the part of anyone in the community, but because it's got problems. It isn't done; it turned out to be more complicated than anticipated; it wasn't updated in a timely fashion; and/or we had difficulty reaching agreement on the best way forward (and still haven't). Most of these patches should probably be deferred to 9.2. So there are two basic difficulties with wrapping the CommitFest up. One is that the 20 patches which are marked Ready for Committer really deserve to be looked at by a committer, and hopefully committed. Unfortunately, my ability to help in this area will be somewhat limited, because at least half of the remaining patches are in areas that I know nothing about (e.g. 7 PL/python patches). The second problem is that the patches that are in serious trouble including synchronous replication and SQL/MED, which are key features I know we're all hoping to have for 9.2. However, we have to face the fact that getting these features in may involve quite a bit of delay. With respect to SQL/MED, Heikki tells me that he is working on the core patch, and I am hopeful that will be committed soon. However, file_fdw is in pretty serious trouble because (1) the copy API patch that it depends on still isn't committed and (2) it's going to be utterly broken if we don't do something about the client_encoding vs. file_encoding problem; there was a patch to do that in this CF, but we gave up on it. And postgresql_fdw was hacked up by Heikki but he didn't seem to have much confidence in it and no one else has reviewed his hacked-up version. With respect to synchronous replication, Dan Farina and I have extracted some of the less-intrusive bits of that patch. One of those changes (standby replies) is committed, though it seems to need a bit of fixup, and the other two are awaiting review. Simon also reported that he is working on this, but I'm not certain of the specifics. Based on the looking at that patch that I did so far, it certainly needs cleanup, and there may be some more serious architectural issues that need to be addressed also. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
pgsql-hackers by date: