Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)
Date: 2013-01-23 18:44:03
Message-ID: 20130123184403.GW16126@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> For all of that, I'm not sure that people failing to seek consensus
> before coding is really so much of a problem as you seem to think.

For my part, I don't think the lack of consensus-finding before
submitting patches is, in itself, a problem.

The problem, imv, is that everyone is expecting that once they've
written a patch and put it on a commitfest that it's going to get
committed- and it seems like committers are feeling under pressure
that, because something's on the CF app, it needs to be committed
in some form.

There's a lot of good stuff out there, sure, and even more good *ideas*,
but it's important to make sure we can provide a stable system with
regular releases. As discussed, we really need to be ready to truely
triage the remaining patch set, figure out who is going to work on what,
and punt the rest til post-9.3.

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2013-01-23 18:45:11 Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
Previous Message Andres Freund 2013-01-23 18:41:34 Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY