| From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules) |
| Date: | 2009-01-27 15:47:52 |
| Message-ID: | 937d27e10901270747l5573d3eci2fb681c414f1bc11@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
>
>> We must at least have the solid belief (of a committer that that has
>> done a proper review) that a patch cannot be polished in an
>> appropriate timeframe,
>
> I already pointed out some pretty serious problems with the updatable
> views patch. Are you claiming they are trivial to fix?
Not at all. I think the deferral of that particular patch is the
correct thing to do because there are confirmed, real problems with it
that are not realistic to fix in an appropriate timeframe for the
release. The primary case that I'm objecting to is HS which you've
been saying will take 10 - 12 months to complete having by your own
admission not looked at the code or followed the discussion
particularly closely.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-01-27 15:48:05 | Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules) |
| Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2009-01-27 15:47:32 | Re: pg_upgrade project status |