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

Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules)

From: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules)
Date: 2009-01-26 15:24:38
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas wrote:
> At a minimum, I think the following patches from the CommitFest wiki
> should be returned with feedback or rejected:
> 1. SE-PostgreSQL.  We handled this one badly, but there's not enough
> time to fix it now.  8.5.

Please make it clear how many items should be fixed/reworked before
rejecting it due to the lack of time, at least.
(I'm optimistic for its design and quality.)
In addition, why does it impossible to be worked in parallel?
Maybe, I cannot contribute Simon's work, but I can fix/rework
for SE-PostgreSQL in parallel, with my highest priority.

As I noted in another message, the current trend strongly
requires "availability" and "security" for the platform of
SaaS/PaaS or cloud-computing. So, we should also include
SE-PostgreSQL within v8.4. I believe it makes PostgreSQL
more widespreadly applied.

> 2. rmgr hooks and contrib/rmgr_hook.  Reject because Tom and Heikki
> don't believe it's the right approach.  Need better use cases.
> 3. Synchronous log-shipping replication.  We handled this one well,
> but it's not in good enough shape.  8.5.

IMO, this feature is also key factor for "availablity".
If author can have enough activity, we should not give up right now...

> 4. pg_upgrade script.  I haven't heard much about this in a while...
> I am doubtful that it is production-quality, but maybe I'm wrong?
> 5. Reducing some DDL Locks to ShareLock.  No activity in a long time,
> no time to wait for this to be finished.  8.5.
> ...Robert

KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2009-01-26 15:30:48
Subject: Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql:Automatic view update rules)
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2009-01-26 15:20:55
Subject: Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS]pgsql: Automatic view update rules)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group