The September commitfest has been drifting sideways for most of this
month. I think it's about time to put it out of its misery, especially
since the next one is due to start in barely more than 2 weeks.
The remaining open items:
* Allow encoding specific character incrementer
This has certainly gotten reviewed. I'm unclear on whether it's
committable or not. Let's either commit it or mark it Returned With
* Separating bgwriter and checkpointer
Same for this one.
This one is stuck because we don't have consensus on whether it should
be applied. I suggest pushing it forward to the next 'fest to give
Simon a reasonable amount of time to come up with a counterproposal.
(At some point, though, we should commit it if he doesn't provide one.)
* Non-inheritable check constraints
Greg Stark claimed this one for committing a few weeks ago, but has
not done anything visible since then. Greg?
* Range Types
This has certainly had plenty of work done too. If it's not committable
yet, I think we should mark it Returned With Feedback for now.
* WIP: SP-GiST, Space-Partitioned GiST
I was willing to review this as soon as Oleg and Teodor provided more
than no documentation; but none has been forthcoming, and I think Oleg
is on vacation in the Himalayas again. Suggest pushing it to next fest.
* %TYPE and array declaration
Reviewed, don't have any problem marking this as Returned With Feedback.
* prepare plans of embedded sql on function start
This was reviewed and more or less rejected in September. There is a
new patch there that is completely different, hasn't been reviewed,
but was submitted in October. I think we should mark the original patch
as RWF or even Rejected, and put the new patch in as a brand new item
(new title at least) in the next fest.
* unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf
This one also seems to be lacking consensus more than anything else.
What do we do about that?
regards, tom lane
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-10-28 19:51:25|
|Subject: Re: pg_upgrade if 'postgres' database is dropped|
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2011-10-28 19:48:22|
|Subject: Re: TOAST versus VACUUM, or "missing chunk number 0 for toast value" identified|