Tom Lane wrote:
>You're headed in the right direction, but I'm afraid we're running out
>of time. The core committee has chewed this over and agreed that we
>can't postpone beta for the amount of time we think it will take to make
>this patch committable. So we're going to hold it over for the 8.1
>release cycle.
>
>I have to make a personal apology to you for the fact that things worked
>out this way. I really should have looked at your patch much earlier
>and given you some feedback that might have allowed you to resolve the
>issues in time. I did not because (a) I felt that the other patches
>I was working on were more important features (a judgment I still stand
>by) and (b) I thought your patch was in good enough shape that we could
>apply it with little effort. That judgment was badly off, and again I
>must apologize for it. I hope you won't get discouraged, and will
>continue to work on an integrated autovacuum for 8.1.
>
>
ARRRRGGGHHHHHH!!!!!
This is very frustrating. I saw this coming weeks and weeks ago and
tried to get people's attention so that this wouldn't happen. Aside
from my personal frustration, I will say that autovacuum is a high
priority for lots of users of autovacuum and there are already lots of
users looking forward to it being in 8.0. FWIW, I tried to clean up as
much stuff as I could the other night and submit and updated patch, I
would guess that it wouldn't take you very long to clean up the shutdown
issues.
BTW, I choose to try to integrate it into the backend on the
recomendation of several people on the hackers list despite my warnings
that I would probably need help with the backend code issues. I could
have instead put my time towards an improved version in contrib, now the
end-users will have to go another release cycle without any of the
feature improvements I had hoped for.
>FWIW, core has also agreed that we want to shoot for a much shorter
>release cycle for 8.1 than we have had in the past couple of releases.
>It seems likely that as the new 8.0 features are shaken out, 8.1 will
>be mostly a mop-up development cycle, and that we will want to push it
>out relatively soon (we're thinking of perhaps 3-4 months in
>development, with a total release cycle of 6-7 months).
>
>
>
I think we have all heard this before....
