CommitFest 2009-09, two weeks on
in [PgSql]
|
From: Heikki Linnakangas on 30 Sep 2009 11:19 Robert Haas wrote: > - Hot Standby and Streaming Replication are both huge new features in > this CommitFest, and there seems to be a fair amount of activity > around both patches. Heikki previously expressed optimism about > getting Hot Standby done this CommitFest, but I am not sure whether he > is still feeling optimistic, There's a lot of small things that need fixing, but nothing major. I'm not so much optimistic, but I think we should spend the extra effort required on hot standby to force it in in this commitfest. It's a big feature and it really could use some alpha-testing earlier rather than later. It would also leave time for any extra features or tweaks to be made in the later commitfests. OTOH, I'd hate to hold the commitfest hostage for that. Perhaps it should be returned to author at this point, I should move on to other patches to get the commitfest closed ASAP, and continue reviewing and polishing that right after the commitfest. > or what his feelings are about Streaming > Replication, which is currently waiting on Fujii Masao for a new > version. I'm undecided on whether walreceiver should be a subprocess of the startup process, or of postmaster as it was submitted. I'd appreciate if others would take a look into that too and give opinions. And then there's the small list of things I asked Fujii-san to work on. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Tom Lane on 30 Sep 2009 11:36 Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas(a)enterprisedb.com> writes: > OTOH, I'd hate to hold the commitfest hostage for that. Perhaps it > should be returned to author at this point, I should move on to other > patches to get the commitfest closed ASAP, and continue reviewing and > polishing that right after the commitfest. FWIW, I'd rather you kept focusing on those two patches while other committers work on the rest. From what I've seen you're finding a whole lot of broken or at least questionable stuff, and even if they're individually minor issues, that adds up to a lot of instability. I agree that these patches need special attention and should not be treated exactly the same as we'd treat smaller patches. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Robert Haas on 30 Sep 2009 12:01 On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas(a)enterprisedb.com> writes: >> OTOH, I'd hate to hold the commitfest hostage for that. Perhaps it >> should be returned to author at this point, I should move on to other >> patches to get the commitfest closed ASAP, and continue reviewing and >> polishing that right after the commitfest. > > FWIW, I'd rather you kept focusing on those two patches while other > committers work on the rest. From what I've seen you're finding a > whole lot of broken or at least questionable stuff, and even if they're > individually minor issues, that adds up to a lot of instability. > > I agree that these patches need special attention and should not be > treated exactly the same as we'd treat smaller patches. I tend to agree. I think it's reasonable for you (meaning Heikki) to devote far more time and effort to those patches than you would to other patches implementing more run-of-the-mill features, and it seems like there is no shortage of things to find and fix. I don't think that having you take a break to work on other patches is going to be to the overall benefit of the project (and many of the more significant remaining patches look like they are right up Tom's alley anyway). That having been said, if Hot Standby is still closer to commit than Streaming Replication, it might make sense to push Streaming Replication off until November, or at least post-CommitFest. Do you have any sense of how soon you'll feel confident to commit either patch? ....Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: Joe Conway on 30 Sep 2009 12:20 Robert Haas wrote: > - There is one dblink pach left over from last CommitFest. Joe Conway > was going to review it the weekend of July 18th-19th, but that didn't > end up happening and so that patch is still waiting. We might be able > to find someone else to review it, but I'm not sure whether that will > help unless there is a committer other than Joe with bandwidth to do > the final review and commit. I will get to it before the end of this commitfest, but I have to admit I'm not all that excited about this patch in the first place. I don't know that I agree with the need. Joe
From: Heikki Linnakangas on 30 Sep 2009 12:24
Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(a)sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas(a)enterprisedb.com> writes: >>> OTOH, I'd hate to hold the commitfest hostage for that. Perhaps it >>> should be returned to author at this point, I should move on to other >>> patches to get the commitfest closed ASAP, and continue reviewing and >>> polishing that right after the commitfest. >> FWIW, I'd rather you kept focusing on those two patches while other >> committers work on the rest. From what I've seen you're finding a >> whole lot of broken or at least questionable stuff, and even if they're >> individually minor issues, that adds up to a lot of instability. >> >> I agree that these patches need special attention and should not be >> treated exactly the same as we'd treat smaller patches. > > I tend to agree. I think it's reasonable for you (meaning Heikki) to > devote far more time and effort to those patches than you would to > other patches implementing more run-of-the-mill features, and it seems > like there is no shortage of things to find and fix. I don't think > that having you take a break to work on other patches is going to be > to the overall benefit of the project (and many of the more > significant remaining patches look like they are right up Tom's alley > anyway). Ok, good, I'm more than happy to continue fine-combing hot standby. > That having been said, if Hot Standby is still closer to commit than > Streaming Replication, it might make sense to push Streaming > Replication off until November, or at least post-CommitFest. Commitfest or no-commitfest, I'm planning to continue working on the streaming replication patch in any case until it's committed. > Do you > have any sense of how soon you'll feel confident to commit either > patch? I'm bad at estimating. Not this week for sure, and next week I'm traveling and won't be able to spend as much time on it as I am right now. If no new major issues are found, and all the outstanding issues are resolved by me or Simon by then, maybe the week after that. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |