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

CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)

From: Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>,Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>,Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)
Date: 2013-01-16 08:21:18
Message-ID: 20130116082118.GA6000@toroid.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
At 2013-01-16 02:07:29 -0500, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us wrote:
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, we've totally lost control of
> the CF process.

What can we do to get it back on track?

I know various people (myself included) have been trying to keep CF3
moving, e.g. sending followup mail, adjusting patch status, etc.

I want to help, but I don't know what's wrong. What are the committers
working on, and what is the status of the "Ready for commiter" patches?
Is the problem that the patches marked Ready aren't, in fact, ready? Or
is it lack of feedback from authors? Or something else?

Would it help at all to move all pending items (i.e. anything less than
ready) from CF3 to CF4, just so that the committers have only one list
to look at, while reviewers can work on the other? Only psychological,
but maybe that's better than the current situation?

-- Abhijit


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jeevan ChalkeDate: 2013-01-16 09:05:08
Subject: Re: passing diff options to pg_regress
Previous:From: Abhijit Menon-SenDate: 2013-01-16 07:48:17
Subject: Re: Review of "pg_basebackup and pg_receivexlog to use non-blocking socket communication", was: Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown

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