Thread: Three patches which desperately need reviewers
All, We're almost at the end of the CommitFest, and three patches have not yet been reviewed: lazy vxid locks https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=585 sepgsql - userspace access vector cache https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=578 Allow multiple Postgres clusters running on the same machine to distinguish themselves in the event log https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=562 Also, this patch has been updated and the original reviewer is not available: Add ability to constrain backend temporary file space https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=533 The first two are difficult patches, but the other two are not. Please volunteer to give these patches a review; we owe it to our contributors to review everything before the end of the CF. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com
I would like to volunteer for the last one: > Add ability to constrain backend temporary file space > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=533 -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
On Jul14, 2011, at 02:42 , Josh Berkus wrote: > lazy vxid locks > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=585 I can try to review that. It does seems to depend on the fastlock patch though, and that patch seems to be somewhat of a moving target. I'm thus not sure what the most reasonable approach is here. I could wait for the fastlock patch to be applied, but since the commitfest is drawing to a close that might not be the best course of action. How is such a situation handled usually? best regards, Florian Pflug
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > All, > > We're almost at the end of the CommitFest, and three patches have not > yet been reviewed: > > lazy vxid locks > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=585 > > sepgsql - userspace access vector cache > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=578 > > Allow multiple Postgres clusters running on the same machine to > distinguish themselves in the event log > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=562 I'll spend time on this tomorrow. merlin
On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 02:54 +0200, Florian Pflug wrote: > On Jul14, 2011, at 02:42 , Josh Berkus wrote: > > lazy vxid locks > > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=585 > > I can try to review that. It does seems to depend on > the fastlock patch though, and that patch seems to be > somewhat of a moving target. I'm thus not sure what the > most reasonable approach is here. I could wait for the > fastlock patch to be applied, but since the commitfest > is drawing to a close that might not be the best course > of action. How is such a situation handled usually? Moving target? Hopefully not. I marked it "ready for committer" already. I did give some feedback, but it's nothing that would get in the way of reviewing the VXID patch. So please do take a look at the VXID patch. Just apply it over the last version of the fastlock patch. I also plan to take a look, but the earliest will be tomorrow. Regards, Jeff Davis
On 2011-07-14 02:42, Josh Berkus wrote: > The first two are difficult patches, but the other two are not. Please > volunteer to give these patches a review; we owe it to our contributors > to review everything before the end of the CF. When is the end of the CF? (I'm strongly suspecting today, but haven't been able to find it with a quick search) regards, Yeb
Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga@gmail.com> writes:
> On 2011-07-14 02:42, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> The first two are difficult patches, but the other two are not. Please
>> volunteer to give these patches a review; we owe it to our contributors
>> to review everything before the end of the CF.
> When is the end of the CF? (I'm strongly suspecting today, but haven't
> been able to find it with a quick search)
The scheduled end date is today, but we're obviously not ready.
regards, tom lane
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 01:42, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Allow multiple Postgres clusters running on the same machine to > distinguish themselves in the event log > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=562 I've reviewed this now, but I won't have time to take it across the finishing line in time for this CF. Regrettable, since the author came back with a response really quick. I propose we bump it to the next CF and I'll try to work on it before we even enter into that CF - unless somebody else feels comfortable taking it all the way. But given that it's been pending so long, I doubt that, but I'l be happy to deal with it in-between. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/