Re: postponing some large patches to 9.2

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> wrote:
> sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net (Stephen Frost) writes:
>> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>>> - Range Types.  This is a large patch which was submitted for the
>>> first time to the last CommitFest of the cycle, and the first version
>>> that had no open TODO items was posted yesterday, three-quarters of
>>> the way through that last CommitFest.  Some good review has been done.
>>>  While more is probably needed, I think we should feel good about
>>> what's been accomplished and mark this one Returned with Feedback.
>>
>> I don't agree w/ punting Range Types.  Range Types were discussed as
>> far back as the 2010 developer meeting, were discussed quite a bit
>> again starting in October and throughout the fall, and Jeff has
>> regularly been posting updates to it.  Given how thorough Jeff is, my
>> feeling is that this patch is more than ready for beta.  My impression
>> is also that it's not as invasive or destablizing as the others and
>> while it wasn't being posted to the previous commit fests, it was
>> clearly being worked on, updated, and improved.
>
> I generally mirror those thoughts.  Range Types don't seem invasive or
> destabilizing, and the code base has been deployed for quite some time
> as an extension ("not quite contrib").  It would be disappointing to
> drop this one when it is mighty close.

It's a 5400 line patch that wasn't completed until the middle of the
current CommitFest. Nobody has ever submitted a major feature patch
of that size that got done in a single CommitFest, to my recollection,
or even half that size. Compare Hot Standby or True Serializability,
both of which required basically a full development cycle. It may be
true that the idea has been kicking around for a long time, but it's
been code-complete for one week.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company