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

So where are we on the open commitfest?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: So where are we on the open commitfest?
Date: 2011-10-28 19:50:56
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
The September commitfest has been drifting sideways for most of this
month.  I think it's about time to put it out of its misery, especially
since the next one is due to start in barely more than 2 weeks.

The remaining open items:

* Allow encoding specific character incrementer

This has certainly gotten reviewed.  I'm unclear on whether it's
committable or not.  Let's either commit it or mark it Returned With
Feedback (Robert?).

* Separating bgwriter and checkpointer

Same for this one.

* pg_last_xact_insert_timestamp

This one is stuck because we don't have consensus on whether it should
be applied.  I suggest pushing it forward to the next 'fest to give
Simon a reasonable amount of time to come up with a counterproposal.
(At some point, though, we should commit it if he doesn't provide one.)

* Non-inheritable check constraints

Greg Stark claimed this one for committing a few weeks ago, but has
not done anything visible since then.  Greg?

* Range Types

This has certainly had plenty of work done too.  If it's not committable
yet, I think we should mark it Returned With Feedback for now.

* WIP: SP-GiST, Space-Partitioned GiST

I was willing to review this as soon as Oleg and Teodor provided more
than no documentation; but none has been forthcoming, and I think Oleg
is on vacation in the Himalayas again.  Suggest pushing it to next fest.

* %TYPE and array declaration

Reviewed, don't have any problem marking this as Returned With Feedback.

* prepare plans of embedded sql on function start

This was reviewed and more or less rejected in September.  There is a
new patch there that is completely different, hasn't been reviewed,
but was submitted in October.  I think we should mark the original patch
as RWF or even Rejected, and put the new patch in as a brand new item
(new title at least) in the next fest.

* unite recovery.conf and postgresql.conf

This one also seems to be lacking consensus more than anything else.
What do we do about that?

			regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-10-28 19:51:25
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade if 'postgres' database is dropped
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2011-10-28 19:48:22
Subject: Re: TOAST versus VACUUM, or "missing chunk number 0 for toast value" identified

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