disposition of remaining patches - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject disposition of remaining patches
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZhy4cBUzu78diHgLq7dRen6U2DuFYWKp2Yd+UfiV_ngA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: disposition of remaining patches
Re: disposition of remaining patches
Re: disposition of remaining patches
Re: disposition of remaining patches
List pgsql-hackers
Looking over the remaining patches that still aren't closed in the
January CommitFest:

Foreign keys with arrays - Tom wants to commit this at the beginning
of a release cycle rather than the end, but there's no actual known
problem with it.  Therefore I suggest moving it to the first 9.3
CommitFest.

ECPG FETCH readahead - Michael Meskes is going to commit this soon;
everyone seems to agree it's ready to go.

pgsql_fdw contrib module - It seems like this is still in the midst of
discussions about what the behavior should be, so it seems like
Returned with Feedback is the only place for it to go.

check function statement - Heikki stated that he isn't comfortable
committing this because it's got too much duplicative code, so I think
we should mark Returned with Feedback until someone does some more
work in that area.

Add timing of buffer I/O requests - This is basically committed, but I
have an outstanding question which I just posted on the relevant
thread.

URI connection string support for libpq - I'm unclear with Alvaro or
Peter still intend to try to slip this one in.  It's simple enough
that I think that would be OK if it can be done in the next day or
two.  Otherwise, 9.3.

parallel pg_dump - I think this one needs to get moved to the first
9.3 CommitFest.  There is more work to be done there than we can
realistically do right now, but I think we can pick it up for the next
cycle.

Thoughts/comments?

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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch: add timing of buffer I/O requests
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: [JDBC] Regarding GSoc Application