2009/12/30 Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>:
>> changes should be made. It does also need to be updated to CVS HEAD,
>> as it no longer applies cleanly.
> The reason was a point_ops patch, some OIDs become duplicated. Both attached
> patches are synced with current CVS.
Thanks! I will take a look.
>> I tend to feel that we should probably target this for 8.6 rather than
>> 8.5. We are down to the last CommitFest, and while we don't have a
>> nailed-down criterion for what is "too big" for the last CommitFest of
>> a given release cycle, this is definitely a big, invasive patch. This
> Is we really have rule to accept only small patches at last CommitFest? May
> be, FixFest name is better for it? :)
See here and following for some of the previous discussion - which was
not unanimous on all points:
I think the intention is not to accept only bug fixes, but to limit
large features to those that have already been through a CommitFest or
> Actually, it's easy to split patch to several ones:
> - contrib/pg_trgm
> - contrib/btree_gist
> - knngist itself
> - planner changes
> And knngist depends on rbtree and point_ops patch, in summary 6 dependent
> patches. Is it more comfortable?
I'm not sure. One of the problems with separating out contrib module
changes is that it tends to obscure the point of the changes to the
core code. On the other hand if some of the core code changes can be
split out into an infrastructure patch that is of some independent
usefulness, that can certainly be worthwhile. It's not obvious to me
without looking at this more than I have whether there is a possble
split that makes sense here; I will read your updated patch.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2009-12-30 17:24:21|
|Subject: Re: Backup history file should be replicated in
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2009-12-30 17:13:04|
|Subject: Re: Thoughts on statistics for continuously advancing