Re: 9.5 release scheduling (was Re: logical column ordering) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:37 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2. It's not clear that we're going to have a particularly-impressive
>> list of major features for 9.5.  So far we've got RLS and BRIN. I
>> expect that GROUPING SETS is far enough along that it should be
>> possible to get it in before development ends, and there are a few
>> performance patches pending (Andres's lwlock scalability patches,
>> Rahila's work on compressing full-page writes) that I think will
>> probably make the grade.  But after that it seems to me that it gets
>> pretty thin on the ground.
>
> I'm slightly surprised that you didn't mention abbreviated keys in
> that list of performance features. You're reviewing that patch; how do
> you feel about it now?

I'm not sure it's where I think it needs to be yet, but yeah, I think
that will get in.  I thought of it after I hit send.

>> Are we going to bill commit timestamp
>> tracking - with replication node ID tracking as the real goal, despite
>> the name - as a major feature, or DDL deparsing if that goes in, as
>> major features?  As useful as they may be for BDR, they don't strike
>> me as things we can publicize as major features independent of BDR.
>> And it's getting awfully late for any other major work that people are
>> thinking of to start showing up.
>
> Version 1.0 of INSERT ... ON CONFLICT UPDATE was posted in August -
> when development launched. It still doesn't have a reviewer, and it
> isn't actually in evidence that someone else has so much as downloaded
> and applied the patch (I'm sure someone has done that much, but the
> fact is that all the feedback that I've received this year concerns
> the semantics/syntax, which you can form an opinion on by just looking
> at the extensive documentation and other supplementary material I've
> written). It's consistently one of the most requested features, and
> yet major aspects of the design, that permeate through every major
> subsystem go unremarked on for months now. This feature is
> *definitely* major feature list material, since people have been
> loudly requesting it for over a decade, and yet no one mentions it in
> this thread (only Bruce mentioned it in the other thread about the
> effectiveness of the CF process). It's definitely in the top 2 or 3
> most requested features, alongside much harder problems like parallel
> query and comprehensive partitioning support.

I'm not sure whether that patch is going to go anywhere.  There has
been so much arguing about different aspects of the design that felt
rather unproductive that I think most of the people who would be
qualified to commit it have grown a bit gun-shy.  That would be a good
problem to get fixed, but I don't have a proposal.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company