At 2013-01-16 22:40:07 -0500, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us wrote:
> However, since we already missed the scheduling agreed to then, the
> question that's on the table now is what we should do instead.
I suggest we close CF3 and bring the pending CF3 patches into CF4, but
still have a triage of CF4 patches in early February. Until then, there
are several patches marked "Ready for committer" for committers to look
at when they have time (14 in CF3, 9 in CF4, with two weeks remaining to
the beginning of February).
Merging the two CFs will result in a huge number of patches, but I don't
think we can treat CF4 as being any less "in progress" than CF3 at this
point. People have already started reviewing those patches, etc.
In response to
- Re: CF3+4 at 2013-01-17 03:40:07 from Tom Lane
- Re: CF3+4 at 2013-01-17 06:52:53 from Craig Ringer
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2013-01-17 04:52:31|
|Subject: Re: bad examples in pg_dump README|
|Previous:||From: Michael Paquier||Date: 2013-01-17 04:47:41|
|Subject: Slave enters in recovery and promotes when WAL stream with master is
cut + delay master/slave|