Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bernd Helmle
Subject Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle
Date
Msg-id 8ABB9E5EE84D22C2C4B6585B@amenophis
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

--On 23. Januar 2009 13:28:27 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

>
> In short, I don't feel that this was ready to be applied.  It's probably
> fixable with a week or so's work, but do we want to be expending that
> kind of effort on it at this stage of the release cycle?
>

Uh well, i'd be happier if such review comments would have been made 
earlier in the CommitFest.

If i understand you correctly we have the choice between

a) revert this patch, fix all remaining issues which will likely postpone 
this for 8.5
b) don't revert, but try to fix the issues currently existing in HEAD.

It seems you're unsure wether b) is an option at all, because the amount of
remaining work exceeds the time left for this release cycle?

To be honest: I'm disappointed. If it tooks only a few steps to identify 
those (obviously important) issues, i get the opinion that there's very few 
motivating interest in this functionality (And yes, i'm annoyed about 
myself to not consider those operator issues).
Bernd




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Oleg Bartunov
Date:
Subject: duplicated tables
Next
From: Bryce Nesbitt
Date:
Subject: Re: New pg_dump patch -- document statistics collector exception (REVISED PATCH)