On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:32 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> > Whatever happened to this? ?It was in the first 9.0 commitfest but was
>> > returned with feedback but never updated:
>> > ? ? ? ?https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=75
>> Well, the patch author chose not to pursue it. It's clearly far too
>> late now, at least for 9.0.
>> I'm pleased to see that you're not finding many patches that just
>> completely slipped through the cracks - seems like most things were
>> withdrawn on purpose, had problems, and/or were not pursued by the
>> author. I think the CommitFest process has done a pretty good job of
>> making sure everything gets looked at. The only small chink I see is
>> that there may be some patches (especially small ones or from
>> first-time contributors) which escaped getting added to a CommitFest
>> in the first place; and we don't really have a way of policing that.
>> Usually someone replies to the patch author and suggests adding it to
>> the next CF, but I can't swear that that happens in every case.
> Yea, the complex issues are often lost, and I stopped tracking
> commitfest items so I don't actually know if anything that got into the
> commit fest was eventually just dropped by the author. We can say we
> don't need to persue those but they might be valuable/important.
Yes, they could be valuable/important - anything that falls into that
category is probably going to turn into a TODO list item at this
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jaime Casanova||Date: 2010-02-26 03:50:35|
|Subject: Re: Allow vacuumdb to only analyze|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-02-26 03:40:35|
|Subject: Re: Avoiding bad prepared-statement plans. |