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

Re: CommitFest progress - or lack thereof

From: Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-rrreviewers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: CommitFest progress - or lack thereof
Date: 2011-02-04 15:46:20
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-rrreviewers

I don't see btree_gist with knn-support. I'm afraid it'll be forgotten.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2011, Robert Haas wrote:

> With ten days left in the current CommitFest, being the last
> CommitFest for 9.1 development, there are presently 40 patches that
> are marked either Needs Review or Waiting on Author.  The 11 patches
> that are Waiting on Author are the following:
> Synchronous Replication, transaction-controlled
> Recovery Control
> SQL/MED - postgresql_fdw
> Skip validation of Foreign Keys
> Self-tuning checkpoint sync spread
> PL/Python explicit subtransactions
> keeping timestamp of the lasts stats reset
> Named restore points
> pg_stat_activity.client_hostname field
> log_csv_fields ; add current_role log option
> If you are the author of one of these patches, you need to post an
> updated patch ASAP, or wait for 9.2.  A number of these patches have
> been sitting for WEEKS without an update.  When you post your updated
> patch (or if by chance you already did), please add a link to the
> CommitFest application and change the status to Needs Review.  Many of
> these patches likely still need a few more rounds of review before
> they are committed.  If you wait until February 14th at 11:59pm to
> update them, they're not going to make it in.
> As for the patches that are marked Needs Review, some people have put
> their names into the CommitFest application, indicating their intent
> and commitment to review particular patches, and then have not done
> so.  If you are one of those people, please post your review to the
> list and update the CommitFest application.  If you are a reviewer who
> has completed all of the reviewing you've previously signed up for,
> and still want to do more, please consider jumping in on one of the
> patches that still needs review, and help move the discussion along.
> Even if you cannot do a full review, please review as much as you can
> and post your feedback to the list.  We need to determine which of
> these patches are viable candidates for 9.2 and which are not.  If you
> are a patch author and your patch is marked as needing review, please
> double-check that it still applies and has not bitrotted, and verify
> that you have responded to all feedback previously given, so that if
> someone has time to review your patch they can do so productively.
> Thanks,

Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su,
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-02-04 15:47:06
Subject: Re: Add ENCODING option to COPY
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-02-04 15:41:04
Subject: Re: Does auto-analyze work on dirty writes? (was: Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again...)

pgsql-rrreviewers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-02-04 15:52:14
Subject: Re: CommitFest progress - or lack thereof
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-02-04 15:29:09
Subject: CommitFest progress - or lack thereof

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