On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> * 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
> Feedback (Robert?).
I think it's committable. Let me drum up a round tuit or two.
> * Separating bgwriter and checkpointer
> Same for this one.
Possibly some discussion here is warranted about the cost of pushing
fsync requests from the background writer to the checkpointer. I
guess I feel like that's probably not a major concern; it can likely
be optimized further if it turns out to be an issue.
> * pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp
> 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.)
+1 to all of that, including the parenthetical note.
> * 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.
I have been thinking about looking at committing at least part of
this, but thought Heikki might be planning to pick it up.
> * 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?
AFAIR, the only person objecting is Simon. I'm not necessarily saying
that means we should drive it in over his objections, but OTOH there
were quite a few people who spoke in favor of it and we shouldn't
ignore those voices either.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2011-10-28 20:07:55|
|Subject: Re: So where are we on the open commitfest?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-10-28 19:58:11|
|Subject: Re: TOAST versus VACUUM, or "missing chunk number 0 for toast value" identified |