On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>> All in all, I think this is in pretty much final shape. Only pg_upgrade
>> bits are still missing. If sharp eyes could give this a critical look
>> and knuckle-cracking testers could give it a spin, that would be
> Lack of pg_upgrade support leaves this version incomplete, because that
> omission would constitute a blocker for beta 2. This version changes as much
> code compared to the version I reviewed at the beginning of the CommitFest as
> that version changed overall. In that light, it's time to close the books on
> this patch for the purpose of this CommitFest; I'm marking it Returned with
> Feedback. Thanks for your efforts thus far.
My view would be that with 90 files touched this is a very large
patch, so that alone makes me wonder whether we should commit this
patch, so I agree with Noah and compliment him on an excellent
However, review of such a large patch should not be simply pass or
fail. We should be looking back at the original problem and ask
ourselves whether some subset of the patch could solve a useful subset
of the problem. For me, that seems quite likely and this is very
definitely an important patch.
Even if we can't solve some part of the problem we can at least commit
some useful parts of infrastructure to allow later work to happen more
smoothly and quickly.
So please let's not focus on the 100%, lets focus on 80/20.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Daniel Farina||Date: 2012-02-23 09:58:44|
|Subject: pg_stat_statements normalization: re-review|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2012-02-23 09:16:11|
|Subject: incompatible pointer types with newer zlib|