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

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> 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.

That sounds pretty fair to me.

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