Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Concurrent psql patch

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Concurrent psql patch
Date: 2008-04-09 02:25:17
Message-ID: 200804090225.m392PHL13977@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> > My understanding was that all items in a commit-fest have one of these 
> > three dispositions:
> 
> > . committed
> > . rejected
> > . referred back to author for more work
> 
> Right.  But Bruce's personal queue has got a different lifecycle:
> items get removed when they are resolved by a committed patch, or
> by being rejected as not wanted, or by being summarized on the public
> TODO list.  For what he's doing that's a very good definition ---
> things don't get forgotten just because nothing has happened lately.
> But it's becoming clearer to me that the commit-fest queue has to be
> a separate animal.  We used Bruce's queue as the base this time around,
> because we had no other timely-available source of the raw data.
> Seems like it's time to split them, though.

Right, if the patch author stops working on it, but it is a feature we
want, the thread goes on the TODO list (or we complete the patch), so
yes, it is a different life-cycle.

> If we do split them then there is going to be some added effort to
> maintain the commit fest queue.  Bruce has made it pretty clear
> that he doesn't want to put in any extra cycles here.  So someone
> else has to step up to the plate if this is going to work.
> Any volunteers out there?

I assumed the wiki was going to be the official patch list from now on
and my web pages were just going to be a public display of things I was
tracking.

Frankly, I haven't been putting anything on the queue for the next
commit fest now except stuff that was already in-process for this commit
fest.  The ideas is that we can commit stuff that has appeared since the
commit fest started before the next commit fest starts.  I also moved
the emails to the next commit fest queue because that preserves the
comments made too.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2008-04-09 02:26:37
Subject: Re: Concurrent psql patch
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-04-09 02:15:53
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] libpq type system 0.9a

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2008-04-09 02:26:37
Subject: Re: Concurrent psql patch
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-04-09 02:15:53
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] libpq type system 0.9a

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group