Re: 2016-01 Commitfest

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 2016-01 Commitfest
Date: 2016-01-11 14:38:39
Message-ID: 20160111143839.GA710062@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

These are the numbers after one week of commitfest work:

Needs review: 65.
Waiting on Author: 14.
Ready for Committer: 6.
Committed: 14.
Total: 99.

The attentive reader might notice that we grew one more patch since last
week, which is the "VACUUM progress checker" thingy that has been under
active review.

We went from 8 committed patches to 14. At the current rate of 6
patches per week it would take us 12 weeks to close the commitfest,
which doesn't sound very good.

There are a number of patches in Needs-review state which haven't seen
any pgsql-hackers activity in a long while. I'm particularly concerned
about the following patches:

* Support multiple synchronous standby servers
* Access method extendability
* Partial sort
* add 'waiting for replication' to pg_stat_activity.state
* More stable query plans via more predictable column statistics
* Statistics for array types
* Declarative partitioning
* Table Partition + Join Pushdown
* multivariate statistics

It would be very helpful of a reviewer to look at those patches.

Some committers have assigned patches to themselves:

* Andres Freund
Speedup timestamp/time/date output functions
* Peter Eisentraut
remove wal_level archive
* Tom Lane
Rework index access method interface
* Teodor Sigaev
New gist vacuum
* Stephen Frost
Default Roles
* Simon Riggs
Fix handling on XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS generated by bgwriter on idle

I assume this means they intend to commit them in some reasonable
timeframe (possibly after some rework). If this is not the case, please
let us know.

Álvaro Herrera
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Kellerer 2016-01-11 14:44:59 Re: 9.4-1207 behaves differently with server side prepared statements compared to 9.2-1102
Previous Message Vladimir Sitnikov 2016-01-11 14:14:28 Re: Re: 9.4-1207 behaves differently with server side prepared statements compared to 9.2-1102