Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items |
Date | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYtkmu-nb6xrK_E13d0CNQ9L8LUZ0831+rSeLpMgj=zzg@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Triaging the remaining open commitfest items (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Responses |
Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items
Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items |
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > * fsync $PGDATA recursively at startup > > Andres is the reviewer of record on this one. He should either commit it > if he feels it's ready, or bounce it to next CF if not. I committed the first part of this as 2ce439f3379aed857517c8ce207485655000fc8e. I think that we do not have design consensus on the rest. I think we should mark this committed, and if the folks who proposed the further work here still want to press their case, that should wait for 9.6. > * Abbreviated key support for Datum sorts > > I've been assuming Robert would either commit this or not, since he's > been the committer for the predecessor patches. I'll deal with this. > * Sequence Access Method > > Heikki's marked as reviewer, so it's his call as to whether this is ready, > but the impression I have is that there's not really consensus as to > whether the API is good. If not, it's something I think we should push > to 9.6. I share your concern on this one. > * ctidscan as an example of custom-scan > > This basically hasn't gotten any attention, which may mean nobody cares > enough to justify putting it in the tree. We need to either push it to > next CF or reject altogether. Agreed. I was fine with never committing this. I don't think we have a requirement that every hook or bit of functionality we expose at the C level must have an example in core. But other people (you? Simon?) seemed to want a demonstration in the core repository. If that's still a priority, I am willing to work on it more for 9.6, but there is not time now. > * parallel mode/contexts > > Robert's patch, his to deal with (likewise for "assessing parallel-safety"). Most of the parallel mode stuff is committed. What's left will have to wait for 9.6. Assessing parallel-safety will also need to wait for 9.6. > * Join pushdown support for foreign tables > > There doesn't seem to be any current patch linked to this CF item. > If there is a patch to get postgres_fdw to make use of the recently > committed join-path support, I assume it's in need of a rebase anyway. I think there is a rebased patch around. I think it's just not linked into the CF thread. I don't think it's committable as is. > * Grouping Sets > > I had originally promised to be committer for this one, and still want > to go look at it, but Robert's nearby message about not committing stuff > in haste definitely seems to apply. I really feel we didn't give this a fair shake. I'm not saying we should make up for that by committing it in haste, but not giving things a fair shake is bad for the project regardless of anything else. > * TABLESAMPLE clause > > I assume we'd better push this to 9.6 at this point. +1 > * REINDEX xxx VERBOSE > > Seems like we just need somebody to make a decision on syntax. I just posted a review of this raising minor points only. If it is timely revised, I will commit it. > * Additional role attributes > > Is this ready to commit? Stephen's call. -1 for committing this, per discussion earlier today on a thread that's probably not linked into the CF app. > * catalog view to pg_hba.conf file > > Greg Stark is marked as committer of record on this. I am doubtful whether this is ready. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
pgsql-hackers by date: