Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification

On 28 February 2016 at 20:03, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> So, where to go from here? I'm acutely aware that we're hard up against
> the final 9.6 commitfest, and that we discourage major patches arriving
> so late in a devel cycle. But I simply couldn't get this done any faster.
> I don't really want to hold it over for the 9.7 devel cycle. It's been
> enough trouble maintaining this patch in the face of conflicting commits
> over the last year or so (it's probably still got bugs related to parallel
> query...), and there definitely are conflicting patches in the upcoming
> 'fest. And the lack of this infrastructure is blocking progress on FDWs
> and some other things.
>

Thanks for working on this; it is important.

I'm disappointed to see you do this because of FDWs, with the "some other
things" like parallel aggregation not getting a mention by name.

While I wouldn't mind seeing this go in, what worries me is the multiple
other patches that now need to be rewritten to exploit this and since some
aren't mentioned would it be reasonable to imagine those other things won't
be prioritised for this release? Or will we be deciding to elongate the
integration phase to cope with this? Delay or favour forks, which should we
choose?

Anyway, glad to see you will now experience the problems of maintaining
large patches across multiple releases and/or the difficulty of arguing in
favour of patches that still require work going in at the last minute. Not
with relish, just so that understanding isn't limited to the usual suspects
of feature-crime.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services