Re: 8.4 release planning

Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 19:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Then why has *nobody* stepped up to review the design, much less the
>> whole patch? The plain truth is that no one appears to care enough to
>> expend any real effort.
>
> I've spent some time looking at it and have made all the comments I
> wished to make. The design seems clear and fit for purpose, having read
> KaiGai's excellent Wiki description of how it all fits together and also
> read some PDF links Bruce sent out.

Thanks for your comment, although you also have a tough work.

> But I've not had time to look at the whole patch and my contacts have
> not had sufficient time to do anything meaningful with it either.
>
> If we can minimise the impact on normal running and it doesn't have any
> implications for robustness, it should be OK. Surely we should give it a
> quick review to see if it has any gotchas. If not, and KaiGai is willing
> to commit to supporting it, then should be good to go. KaiGai isn't a
> home hacker, he's a lead developer for a major multinational, so we
> should be able to take his word if he says he will continue to
> contribute fixes if problems are found. If we don't commit to him and
> his company then they won't commit to us either.

Needless to say, I will continue to support the feature.
I cannot understand why is it necessary to disappear from here.

At least, a binary with "--enable-selinux" passes all regression
test with/without "pgace_feature=selinux".
The benchmark results I have is a bit legacy, so it is necessary
to record it again, but I don't think it gives significant
implications on normal running (pgace_feature=none).
(Yes, it indeed gives us performance loss with selinux-enabled,
but we assume performance is not the first priority in this case.)

> The process works like this: software gets developed, then it gets
> certified. If its not certified, then Undercover Elephant will not be
> used by the secret people. We can't answer the "will it be certified?"
> question objectively yet. If we have someone willing to write the
> software and put it forward for certification then we should trust that
> it probably will pass certification and if it doesn't we will see
> further patches to allow that to happen.

--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>