| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Schedule of commit fests for PG14 |
| Date: | 2020-05-21 06:44:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAOBaU_a=7vzW-mBGMWBNii_ip6xcs92915-H5P1i3-g8+pr90A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 8:36 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Normally $subject would have been discussed at the developer meeting
> in Ottawa, but that's not going to happen per the current situation.
>
> For the last couple of years, we have been using the same timeline for
> for commit fests in a development cycle, so why not going with the
> same flow this year? This would mean 5 CFs:
> - 2020-07-01~2020-07-31
> - 2020-09-01~2020-09-30
> - 2020-11-01~2020-11-30
> - 2021-01-01~2021-01-31
> - 2021-03-01~2021-03-31
>
> Any thoughts or opinions?
+1, I don't see for now any reason not going with the same planning for pg14.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2020-05-21 06:49:53 | Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store) |
| Previous Message | chenhj | 2020-05-21 06:36:40 | [Proposal] Page Compression for OLTP |