Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: CF3+4

From: Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: CF3+4
Date: 2013-01-17 04:48:59
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
At 2013-01-16 22:40:07 -0500, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us wrote:
> However, since we already missed the scheduling agreed to then, the
> question that's on the table now is what we should do instead.

I suggest we close CF3 and bring the pending CF3 patches into CF4, but
still have a triage of CF4 patches in early February. Until then, there
are several patches marked "Ready for committer" for committers to look
at when they have time (14 in CF3, 9 in CF4, with two weeks remaining to
the beginning of February).

Merging the two CFs will result in a huge number of patches, but I don't
think we can treat CF4 as being any less "in progress" than CF3 at this
point. People have already started reviewing those patches, etc.

-- Abhijit

In response to

  • Re: CF3+4 at 2013-01-17 03:40:07 from Tom Lane


  • Re: CF3+4 at 2013-01-17 06:52:53 from Craig Ringer

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2013-01-17 04:52:31
Subject: Re: bad examples in pg_dump README
Previous:From: Michael PaquierDate: 2013-01-17 04:47:41
Subject: Slave enters in recovery and promotes when WAL stream with master is cut + delay master/slave

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group