Re: Re: pg9.6 segfault using simple query (related to use fk for join estimates)

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 10:20:44AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:32:24AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> >> IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED. This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is long past due
> >> for your status update. Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on open
> >> item ownership[1] and then reply immediately. If I do not hear from you by
> >> 2016-06-04 15:00 UTC, I will transfer this item to release management team
> >> ownership without further notice.
> >> [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.GA447393@tornado.leadboat.com
>
> > This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item now needs a permanent owner. I want PostgreSQL
> > to have this planner functionality, but I cannot both give it the attention it
> > needs and meet commitments predating this open item. Would any other
> > committer like to take ownership? If this role interests you, please read
> > this thread and the policy linked above, then send an initial status update
> > bearing a date for your subsequent status update. If the item does not have a
> > permanent owner by 2016-06-07 22:00 UTC, I will resolve the item by reverting
> > commits 68d704e and 137805f.
>
> The state of play here seems to be that Tomas is willing to have a go at
> rewriting the patch per my suggestions, but Simon has not shown any
> indications of responding in a timely fashion; and time is now of the
> essence.
>
> I am willing to take ownership of this item; but if I do, I will start
> by reverting the aforementioned commits and their followups. I do not
> think that very much of what's there now will survive without significant
> changes, and to my taste it will be easier to review a rewritten patch
> de novo. If Tomas is able to produce a rewritten patch within a week
> (by 6/14), I will undertake to review it with an eye to committing by
> the end of next week. If we are unable to produce something satisfactory
> before beta2, the feature needs to be postponed into the next devel cycle.

Through the lens of open item procedure, I see no defects in your offer of
ownership. I have updated the open items sheet to reflect you being the new
owner. Thanks.

My personal opinion is that the community should not undertake a "rewrite" of
a nontrivial feature after freeze. The fact that a progenitor was present in
the tree at freeze doesn't make the rewrite much less risky than a brand new
feature. So, I suggest that you instead revert the patches and review that
rewrite for next CommitFest. Even so, I am okay with your current plan.

Thanks,
nm