On 16 January 2013 19:28, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
>> * Abhijit Menon-Sen (ams(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com) wrote:
>>> Also, what should he start with? CF3 as it stands today, or CF4 with all
>>> of the pending patches moved from CF3, immense though the result may be?
>>> I slightly prefer the latter, so that we're all on the same page when it
>>> comes to seeing what needs to be done.
>> I'd leave it up to him to decide, but I think the general thought was to
>> move it all to one place.
> The original intention, per agreement at the last dev meeting,
> was that we'd have a "triage" discussion between CF3 and CF4 to try to
> figure out which remaining big patches had a realistic chance of getting
> committed during CF4. The ones that didn't could then be deferred to
> 9.4 without first sucking a lot of time away from the ones that could
> get in.
Sorry to correct you but that was not the original
intention/agreement. Robert made that suggestion, and I opposed it,
saying it was too early and suggesting triage week for first week of
Feb instead. My recollection, sitting opposite you, was that you
agreed, as did many others.
I agree we need triage, and have no problem if you lead that. But lets
wait until early Feb, please.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
- Re: CF3+4 at 2013-01-16 19:28:05 from Tom Lane
- Re: CF3+4 at 2013-01-17 03:40:07 from Tom Lane
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tatsuo Ishii||Date: 2013-01-17 01:35:08|
|Subject: Re: review: pgbench - aggregation of info written into
|Previous:||From: Jeff Janes||Date: 2013-01-17 01:20:37|
|Subject: Re: string escaping in tutorial/syscat.source|