Re: 2016-01 Commitfest - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: 2016-01 Commitfest
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmoaks7HL7RXcCOy-9+c3YuSbTriU9DmcOoFRhg05-SurFw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 2016-01 Commitfest  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: 2016-01 Commitfest  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> We still have 41 patches that haven't gotten enough review though.  The
> bad part about it is that there's a number of patches that have been
> bouncing for many commitfests now.  Here's a list of the patches with
> the most such actions (both in Needs Review and Ready for Committer
> state):
>
> Five "Moved to next commitfest"
> * https://commitfest.postgresql.org/8/49/
>   Default Roles

This patch has gotten some feedback relatively recently, specifically
to question whether we want it.  I think it's fair to say that the
reaction to this proposal has never been cold nor more than lukewarm.

> Four "Moved to next commitfest"
> * https://commitfest.postgresql.org/8/129/
>   Unique Joins

I've been hoping Tom would pick this up.  If he doesn't, I will look
at it eventually, but it's not on my top 20 list of things to get
committed at this point.  I think it's worthwhile, but I just don't
have the bandwidth.

> Three "Moved to next commitfest"
> * https://commitfest.postgresql.org/8/169/
>   postgres_fdw: Options to set fetch_size at the server and table level.

Just reviewed that.

> * https://commitfest.postgresql.org/8/180/
>   Atomic commit support for foreign data wrappers

I think this needs considerably more work, but it probably needs a
series of detailed reviews first.  There's also some question about
how this fits into the distributed transaction manager work by the
Postgres Pro guys.

> * https://commitfest.postgresql.org/8/189/
>   extends pgbench expressions with functions

I looked at this in the past and felt that the design was not good.
It's been revised since then, but I haven't gotten back around to look
at it again.  I think this has gotten a fair amount of discussion but
I'm not sure we've converged on something really solid yet.

> * https://commitfest.postgresql.org/8/210/
>   improving join estimates using FK

This thread seems to end with some author-reviewer discussion that petered out.

> * https://commitfest.postgresql.org/8/260/
>   checkpoint continuous flushing

Andres FTW.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Corey Huinker
Date:
Subject: Re: [POC] FETCH limited by bytes.
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: count_nulls(VARIADIC "any")