Thread: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Looking at what remains open in the current commitfest:

* fsync $PGDATA recursively at startup

Andres is the reviewer of record on this one.  He should either commit it
if he feels it's ready, or bounce it to next CF if not.

* EvalPlanQual behaves oddly for FDW queries involving system columns

I've been working this one and will deal with any mop-up needed, but
I think probably what ought to happen now is just to commit the small
ctid-transmission hack I posted yesterday and call it good.

* BRIN inclusion operator class

This is Alvaro's turf, obviously.

* PageRepairFragmentation optimization

Heikki's patch, so his to commit or not, though since it's marked
Waiting on Author I'm guessing it's not ready?

* Abbreviated key support for Datum sorts

I've been assuming Robert would either commit this or not, since he's
been the committer for the predecessor patches.

* KNN-GiST with recheck

Heikki's been dealing with this thread so far, and is surely the best
qualified to decide if it's ready or not.

* GIN fillfactor

I'd like to put this one on Heikki's plate as well, since he's touched
the GIN code more than anyone else lately.

* Manipulating complex types as non-contiguous structures in-memory

This one's mine of course.  I've been hoping to get more independent
performance testing than it's gotten, but time grows short.  I'm inclined
to just go ahead and push it in.

* Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW

I concur with Stephen's assessment that this doesn't look well designed.
I think we should just mark it RWF for now.

* iteration over record in plpgsql

I fear this one slipped through the cracks --- it's marked Waiting on
Author in the CF app, but it looks like Pavel did submit an updated
version after that marking was made.  However, it's not a terribly
significant feature and there was doubt as to whether we want it at
all anyway.  Suggest we just punt it to next CF at this point.

* Sequence Access Method

Heikki's marked as reviewer, so it's his call as to whether this is ready,
but the impression I have is that there's not really consensus as to
whether the API is good.  If not, it's something I think we should push
to 9.6.

* archive_mode=shared/always

Heikki's patch, so his call.

* Sending WAL receiver feedback regularly even if the receiver is under heavy load

This seems to not be ready, but it also seems to be a bug fix, so when
it is ready I think we could commit it.

* Auditing extension

I do not get the impression that there is consensus on this.  Push to 9.6?

* ctidscan as an example of custom-scan

This basically hasn't gotten any attention, which may mean nobody cares
enough to justify putting it in the tree.  We need to either push it to
next CF or reject altogether.

* parallel mode/contexts

Robert's patch, his to deal with (likewise for "assessing parallel-safety").

* RLS: row-level security, more review

Stephen's baby.

* Cube extension kNN support

This is still marked as "needs review", I'm afraid we have to push to 9.6.

* compress method for spgist

* Join pushdown support for foreign tables

There doesn't seem to be any current patch linked to this CF item.
If there is a patch to get postgres_fdw to make use of the recently
committed join-path support, I assume it's in need of a rebase anyway.

* Grouping Sets

I had originally promised to be committer for this one, and still want
to go look at it, but Robert's nearby message about not committing stuff
in haste definitely seems to apply.

* TABLESAMPLE clause

I assume we'd better push this to 9.6 at this point.

* REINDEX xxx VERBOSE

Seems like we just need somebody to make a decision on syntax.

* Additional role attributes

Is this ready to commit?  Stephen's call.

* catalog view to pg_hba.conf file

Greg Stark is marked as committer of record on this.

* Add pg_settings.pending_restart column

Peter's patch, his call.


So there you have it.  If everyone would go make decisions on the patches
that they are the most obvious committer for, we could get those taken
care of one way or the other pretty quickly.  As for the ones I proposed
pushing to 9.6, any committer who feels differently can pick those up,
else I'll go change their status in the CF app tomorrow or so.
        regards, tom lane



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Tom Lane
Date:
I wrote:
> * Cube extension kNN support

> This is still marked as "needs review", I'm afraid we have to push to 9.6.

> * compress method for spgist

Sigh.  There was a "Ditto" under this one, but somehow it disappeared
in editing :-(
        regards, tom lane



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Robert Haas
Date:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> * fsync $PGDATA recursively at startup
>
> Andres is the reviewer of record on this one.  He should either commit it
> if he feels it's ready, or bounce it to next CF if not.

I committed the first part of this as
2ce439f3379aed857517c8ce207485655000fc8e.  I think that we do not have
design consensus on the rest.  I think we should mark this committed,
and if the folks who proposed the further work here still want to
press their case, that should wait for 9.6.

> * Abbreviated key support for Datum sorts
>
> I've been assuming Robert would either commit this or not, since he's
> been the committer for the predecessor patches.

I'll deal with this.

> * Sequence Access Method
>
> Heikki's marked as reviewer, so it's his call as to whether this is ready,
> but the impression I have is that there's not really consensus as to
> whether the API is good.  If not, it's something I think we should push
> to 9.6.

I share your concern on this one.

> * ctidscan as an example of custom-scan
>
> This basically hasn't gotten any attention, which may mean nobody cares
> enough to justify putting it in the tree.  We need to either push it to
> next CF or reject altogether.

Agreed.  I was fine with never committing this.  I don't think we have
a requirement that every hook or bit of functionality we expose at the
C level must have an example in core.  But other people (you?  Simon?)
seemed to want a demonstration in the core repository.  If that's
still a priority, I am willing to work on it more for 9.6, but there
is not time now.

> * parallel mode/contexts
>
> Robert's patch, his to deal with (likewise for "assessing parallel-safety").

Most of the parallel mode stuff is committed.  What's left will have
to wait for 9.6.

Assessing parallel-safety will also need to wait for 9.6.

> * Join pushdown support for foreign tables
>
> There doesn't seem to be any current patch linked to this CF item.
> If there is a patch to get postgres_fdw to make use of the recently
> committed join-path support, I assume it's in need of a rebase anyway.

I think there is a rebased patch around.  I think it's just not linked
into the CF thread.  I don't think it's committable as is.

> * Grouping Sets
>
> I had originally promised to be committer for this one, and still want
> to go look at it, but Robert's nearby message about not committing stuff
> in haste definitely seems to apply.

I really feel we didn't give this a fair shake.  I'm not saying we
should make up for that by committing it in haste, but not giving
things a fair shake is bad for the project regardless of anything
else.

> * TABLESAMPLE clause
>
> I assume we'd better push this to 9.6 at this point.

+1

> * REINDEX xxx VERBOSE
>
> Seems like we just need somebody to make a decision on syntax.

I just posted a review of this raising minor points only.  If it is
timely revised, I will commit it.

> * Additional role attributes
>
> Is this ready to commit?  Stephen's call.

-1 for committing this, per discussion earlier today on a thread
that's probably not linked into the CF app.

> * catalog view to pg_hba.conf file
>
> Greg Stark is marked as committer of record on this.

I am doubtful whether this is ready.

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



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Andres Freund
Date:
On 2015-05-13 11:38:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Looking at what remains open in the current commitfest:
> 
> * fsync $PGDATA recursively at startup
> 
> Andres is the reviewer of record on this one.  He should either commit it
> if he feels it's ready, or bounce it to next CF if not.

The more important part of this has been committed by Robert. The other
part, while also important in my opinion, has by now slipped 9.5.

I've moved it.

> * Manipulating complex types as non-contiguous structures in-memory
> 
> This one's mine of course.  I've been hoping to get more independent
> performance testing than it's gotten, but time grows short.  I'm inclined
> to just go ahead and push it in.

I'm a bit hesitant about performance regressions around it. And I'd
obviously rather not see the macros but the inline version ;). But I
think overall we're in a better position with it, than without. If it
turns out to have bad edge cases performancewise, we can still "turn it
off" in plpgsql without much problems. If we, preferrably, can't find a
better solution for the performance problem.

> * Grouping Sets
> 
> I had originally promised to be committer for this one, and still want
> to go look at it, but Robert's nearby message about not committing stuff
> in haste definitely seems to apply.

This has been in a limbo for a very long time. I'm right now working
with Andrew getting it into a a committable shape. I'm not 100% sure
we'll succeed for 9.5, but it deserves a chance. If it doesn't make it
into 9.6, I plan to get into 9.6 soon after the branch opens.

> * Additional role attributes
> 
> Is this ready to commit?  Stephen's call.

Not yet ready in my opinion.

Greetings,

Andres Freund



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Stephen Frost
Date:
Tom, all,

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> * Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW
>
> I concur with Stephen's assessment that this doesn't look well designed.
> I think we should just mark it RWF for now.

I had meant to do that already, sorry about that, done now.

> * iteration over record in plpgsql
>
> I fear this one slipped through the cracks --- it's marked Waiting on
> Author in the CF app, but it looks like Pavel did submit an updated
> version after that marking was made.  However, it's not a terribly
> significant feature and there was doubt as to whether we want it at
> all anyway.  Suggest we just punt it to next CF at this point.

I had been interested but also thought it was waiting for a new
version.  Doesn't look like I'll have time now.

> * Auditing extension
>
> I do not get the impression that there is consensus on this.  Push to 9.6?

I've not seen much disagreement about what it provides recently, those
were dealt with a while ago.  I agree with Robert that it needs more
work on documentation and comments and I've sent my thoughts about what
to improve in those areas over to David.  I've reviewed it in various
forms and am hoping to commit it, unless there are objections.

> * RLS: row-level security, more review
>
> Stephen's baby.

I don't have anything pending on this at the moment.  Post
feature-freeze I'm planning to spend time on bug hunting, documentation
improvements, etc, for this, UPSERT, and other things.  If anyone is
aware of any outstanding issues here, please let me know.

> * Additional role attributes
>
> Is this ready to commit?  Stephen's call.

I'm pretty happy with the latest version.  Would be great for others to
weigh in on if they have any concerns about reserving the 'pg_' prefix
for system roles (or if they're fine with it, that'd be useful to know
too..).  I'll also be improving the documentation for it.

> * catalog view to pg_hba.conf file
>
> Greg Stark is marked as committer of record on this.

I was hoping to look at that also, as I do think it'd be valuable to
have.  The current patch needs rework though.  I agree with Peter that
using "keyword_*" arrays is not a good approach and that it'd really be
better to have this in conjunction with a function that users could use
to see what row is returned.  I might have time to work on it tomorrow,
if other things fall into place, but it's not going to be without
changes and perhaps that means it has to punt to 9.6.

> So there you have it.  If everyone would go make decisions on the patches
> that they are the most obvious committer for, we could get those taken
> care of one way or the other pretty quickly.  As for the ones I proposed
> pushing to 9.6, any committer who feels differently can pick those up,
> else I'll go change their status in the CF app tomorrow or so.

Done, for my part.
Thanks!
    Stephen

Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2015-05-13 11:38:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> * Manipulating complex types as non-contiguous structures in-memory
>> 
>> This one's mine of course.  I've been hoping to get more independent
>> performance testing than it's gotten, but time grows short.  I'm inclined
>> to just go ahead and push it in.

> I'm a bit hesitant about performance regressions around it. And I'd
> obviously rather not see the macros but the inline version ;). But I
> think overall we're in a better position with it, than without. If it
> turns out to have bad edge cases performancewise, we can still "turn it
> off" in plpgsql without much problems. If we, preferrably, can't find a
> better solution for the performance problem.

Right, I should have said "absorb Andres' input and then commit".  What
I wanted to know was whether there would be objections to committing
this at all.
        regards, tom lane



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Stephen Frost
Date:
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > * Additional role attributes
> >
> > Is this ready to commit?  Stephen's call.
>
> -1 for committing this, per discussion earlier today on a thread
> that's probably not linked into the CF app.

Linked it into the CF, sorry for not doing so earlier.

I'm not going to push it over objections, but I'm certainly hopeful that
there will be further discussion on that thread.  For my part, at least,
it's a really nice capability to have that we've been missing for a long
time- I can remember back to the first time I was setting up Nagios and
wondering how in the world I could monitor the system without giving the
Nagios user full superuser rights.  I know there are instances out in
the wild that I've set up which are still hacked up to deal with this
lack of capability.

Further, if we don't have something like this, then I'm worried about
people who use the XLOG functions today for monitoring, as we'd end up
having to lock those down to superuser-only, since there isn't anything
between 'public' and 'superuser'.
Thanks!
    Stephen

Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Andrew Dunstan
Date:
On 05/13/2015 11:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> * Grouping Sets
>
> I had originally promised to be committer for this one, and still want
> to go look at it, but Robert's nearby message about not committing stuff
> in haste definitely seems to apply.
>
>

That makes me sad. I wish you would still try.

Sadly, my plate is full with other stuff, the last few days absorbed 
more than my available time.

cheers

andrew



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Petr Jelinek
Date:
On 13/05/15 17:38, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> * Sequence Access Method
>
> Heikki's marked as reviewer, so it's his call as to whether this is ready,
> but the impression I have is that there's not really consensus as to
> whether the API is good.  If not, it's something I think we should push
> to 9.6.
>

Heikki said he won't have time for this one before freeze so I guess it 
can be pushed to 9.6.

--  Petr Jelinek                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Andres Freund
Date:
On 2015-05-13 11:38:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> * parallel mode/contexts
> 
> Robert's patch, his to deal with (likewise for "assessing parallel-safety").

Just as a note, a large part of this has been committed.



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2015-05-13 11:38:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> * parallel mode/contexts
>> 
>> Robert's patch, his to deal with (likewise for "assessing parallel-safety").

> Just as a note, a large part of this has been committed.

Right, and Robert commented that he isn't planning to do more here
for 9.5, so probably these CF items should be closed as committed?
        regards, tom lane



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Robert Haas
Date:
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> On 2015-05-13 11:38:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> * parallel mode/contexts
>>>
>>> Robert's patch, his to deal with (likewise for "assessing parallel-safety").
>
>> Just as a note, a large part of this has been committed.
>
> Right, and Robert commented that he isn't planning to do more here
> for 9.5, so probably these CF items should be closed as committed?

Already done.

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



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Kouhei Kaigai
Date:
> > * ctidscan as an example of custom-scan
> >
> > This basically hasn't gotten any attention, which may mean nobody cares
> > enough to justify putting it in the tree.  We need to either push it to
> > next CF or reject altogether.
> 
> Agreed.  I was fine with never committing this.  I don't think we have
> a requirement that every hook or bit of functionality we expose at the
> C level must have an example in core.  But other people (you?  Simon?)
> seemed to want a demonstration in the core repository.  If that's
> still a priority, I am willing to work on it more for 9.6, but there
> is not time now.
>
If no other people required it again, I don't think this module should
be kept in core and also I'm not favor to push ctidscan to v9.6 development
cycle. It intends to demonstrate custom-scan interface, however, it is
not certain an example always needs to be in-core.
If we split the patch partially, definition below makes sense to implement
out-of-core example module

+#define TIDNotEqualOperator    402DATA(insert OID = 2799 (  "<"     PGNSP PGUID b f f    27      27      16
2800DESCR("lessthan");#define TIDLessOperator    2799DATA(insert OID = 2800 (  ">"     PGNSP PGUID b f f    27      27
   16 2799DESCR("greater than");
 
+#define TIDGreaterOperator     2800DATA(insert OID = 2801 (  "<="    PGNSP PGUID b f f    27      27      16
2802DESCR("lessthan or equal");
 
+#define TIDLessEqualOperator   2801DATA(insert OID = 2802 (  ">="    PGNSP PGUID b f f    27      27      16
2801DESCR("greaterthan or equal");
 
+#define TIDGreaterEqualOperator        2802

> > * Join pushdown support for foreign tables
> >
> > There doesn't seem to be any current patch linked to this CF item.
> > If there is a patch to get postgres_fdw to make use of the recently
> > committed join-path support, I assume it's in need of a rebase anyway.
> 
> I think there is a rebased patch around.  I think it's just not linked
> into the CF thread.  I don't think it's committable as is.
>
I believe he is working to follow up the latest foreign/custom-join
interface on which postgres_fdw expected. One point we like to clarify
is how create_plan_recurse() shall be dealt with.
As Hanada-san posted yesterday, postgres_fdw internally uses
create_plan_recurse() to fetch SQL statement associated with inner /
outer sub-plan, so it will take additional adjustment work even
though he already begin to work.

| IMO it isn't necessary to apply the change onto
| ForeignPath/ForeignScan.  FDW would have a way to keep-and-use sub
| paths as private information.  In fact, I wrote postgres_fdw to use
| create_plan_recurse to generate SQL statements of inner/outer
| relations to be joined, but as of now SQL construction for join
| push-down is accomplished by calling private function deparseSelectSql
| recursively at the top of a join tree.

Thanks,
--
NEC Business Creation Division / PG-Strom Project
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com>

Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 05/13/2015 11:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> * Grouping Sets
>> 
>> I had originally promised to be committer for this one, and still want
>> to go look at it, but Robert's nearby message about not committing stuff
>> in haste definitely seems to apply.

> That makes me sad. I wish you would still try.

FWIW, I did go look at this patch, and concluded it was not close enough
to ready to try to squeeze it in now.  (I think Andres isn't convinced
of that yet, but time grows short, and I quite agree with Robert that
committing almost-ready patches at this stage of the game is a bad idea.)

The good news on this front is that Salesforce has recently taken an
interest in having GROUPING SETS capability, so I should be able to
find more time to work on this over the next month or two.  What I am
now hoping for is to work it over and have something ready to push as
soon as the 9.6 branch opens.

What I intend to spend my time on over the next day or so is fixing
the GB18030 conversion problem (bug #12845), which looks like a small
enough task to finish before feature freeze.
        regards, tom lane



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 05:10:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> > On 05/13/2015 11:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> * Grouping Sets
> >> 
> >> I had originally promised to be committer for this one, and still want
> >> to go look at it, but Robert's nearby message about not committing stuff
> >> in haste definitely seems to apply.
> 
> > That makes me sad. I wish you would still try.
> 
> FWIW, I did go look at this patch, and concluded it was not close enough
> to ready to try to squeeze it in now.  (I think Andres isn't convinced
> of that yet, but time grows short, and I quite agree with Robert that
> committing almost-ready patches at this stage of the game is a bad idea.)
> 
> The good news on this front is that Salesforce has recently taken an
> interest in having GROUPING SETS capability, so I should be able to
> find more time to work on this over the next month or two.  What I am
> now hoping for is to work it over and have something ready to push as
> soon as the 9.6 branch opens.
> 
> What I intend to spend my time on over the next day or so is fixing
> the GB18030 conversion problem (bug #12845), which looks like a small
> enough task to finish before feature freeze.

So you claim the item on the commitfest in the Fall, which effectively
prevents other committers from getting involved, then two days before
the freeze you encourage others to work on it, and a day before the
freeze you say it is too late to apply?  And now, all of a sudden, you
are interested in working on this because your employer is interested?

How do I measure the amount of unfairness here?

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + Everyone has their own god. +



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Andres Freund
Date:
On 2015-05-14 17:10:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> FWIW, I did go look at this patch, and concluded it was not close enough
> to ready to try to squeeze it in now.  (I think Andres isn't convinced
> of that yet, but time grows short, and I quite agree with Robert that
> committing almost-ready patches at this stage of the game is a bad idea.)

I think if there's any patch that deserves some leeway it's this
one. It's been been forced into a limbo for nearly half a year; without
leaving Andrew many options.

I've removed the use of GroupedVars and Andrew is right now working on
structural changes. I'm not ready at this point to make a judgement.



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:28:33PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-05-14 17:10:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > FWIW, I did go look at this patch, and concluded it was not close enough
> > to ready to try to squeeze it in now.  (I think Andres isn't convinced
> > of that yet, but time grows short, and I quite agree with Robert that
> > committing almost-ready patches at this stage of the game is a bad idea.)
> 
> I think if there's any patch that deserves some leeway it's this
> one. It's been been forced into a limbo for nearly half a year; without
> leaving Andrew many options.
> 
> I've removed the use of GroupedVars and Andrew is right now working on
> structural changes. I'm not ready at this point to make a judgement.

I will call for a vote that the freeze deadline be changed if this patch
is rejected to due to time.  I might lose the vote, but I am going to
try because if we lose our reputation for fairness, we have lost a lot
more than a week/month of release time.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + Everyone has their own god. +



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 05:10:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The good news on this front is that Salesforce has recently taken an
>> interest in having GROUPING SETS capability, so I should be able to
>> find more time to work on this over the next month or two.  What I am
>> now hoping for is to work it over and have something ready to push as
>> soon as the 9.6 branch opens.

> So you claim the item on the commitfest in the Fall, which effectively
> prevents other committers from getting involved, then two days before
> the freeze you encourage others to work on it, and a day before the
> freeze you say it is too late to apply?  And now, all of a sudden, you
> are interested in working on this because your employer is interested?

[ shrug... ] Andrew had unilaterally removed me as committer from that
patch back in January or so, so it dropped way down my priority list.
I'm willing to move it back up now, but I could do without people
expressing a sense of entitlement to my time.  In any case, Andres is
currently the committer of record, and if he decides to push it in the
next 24 hours, I'm not doing anything more to stand in his way than
Robert already did.

> How do I measure the amount of unfairness here?

Life is unfair.
        regards, tom lane



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 05:37:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 05:10:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The good news on this front is that Salesforce has recently taken an
> >> interest in having GROUPING SETS capability, so I should be able to
> >> find more time to work on this over the next month or two.  What I am
> >> now hoping for is to work it over and have something ready to push as
> >> soon as the 9.6 branch opens.
> 
> > So you claim the item on the commitfest in the Fall, which effectively
> > prevents other committers from getting involved, then two days before
> > the freeze you encourage others to work on it, and a day before the
> > freeze you say it is too late to apply?  And now, all of a sudden, you
> > are interested in working on this because your employer is interested?
> 
> [ shrug... ] Andrew had unilaterally removed me as committer from that
> patch back in January or so, so it dropped way down my priority list.
> I'm willing to move it back up now, but I could do without people
> expressing a sense of entitlement to my time.  In any case, Andres is

I am trying not to express any entitlement.  I do have a problem with
people claiming things that block others.  In fact, the reason your name
was taken off was because you were inactive on the patch. 
Unfortunately, even though your name was removed, people still thought
of you as owning the patch, and your formidable reputation cemented
that.  I feel if you had not gotten involved, that patch would have been
applied long ago,  When someone's involvement _prevents_ a patch from
being reviewed or applied, that is the opposite of what we want.  I
think this effect is indisputable in this case, which is why I am saying
if we let this patch slip due to time, we are being unfair.

> currently the committer of record, and if he decides to push it in the
> next 24 hours, I'm not doing anything more to stand in his way than
> Robert already did.

Uh, did Robert delay work on the patch in any way?

> > How do I measure the amount of unfairness here?
> 
> Life is unfair.

True, but I have problems with leaders acting in a way that is unfair to
those with less power.  Have you considered how demoralizing it is to
work in an unfair environment?  Unfairness happens, but as leaders, we
are supposed to try to avoid it, not cause it.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + Everyone has their own god. +



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Peter Geoghegan
Date:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2015-05-14 17:10:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> FWIW, I did go look at this patch, and concluded it was not close enough
>> to ready to try to squeeze it in now.  (I think Andres isn't convinced
>> of that yet, but time grows short, and I quite agree with Robert that
>> committing almost-ready patches at this stage of the game is a bad idea.)
>
> I think if there's any patch that deserves some leeway it's this
> one. It's been been forced into a limbo for nearly half a year; without
> leaving Andrew many options.

+1.

If Andres is going to try and find a way of getting the patch into
9.5, then I think he deserves at least a few extra days. It wasn't as
if Andrew wasn't all over this from early in the cycle.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Stephen Frost
Date:
* Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:28:33PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2015-05-14 17:10:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > FWIW, I did go look at this patch, and concluded it was not close enough
> > > to ready to try to squeeze it in now.  (I think Andres isn't convinced
> > > of that yet, but time grows short, and I quite agree with Robert that
> > > committing almost-ready patches at this stage of the game is a bad idea.)
> >
> > I think if there's any patch that deserves some leeway it's this
> > one. It's been been forced into a limbo for nearly half a year; without
> > leaving Andrew many options.
> >
> > I've removed the use of GroupedVars and Andrew is right now working on
> > structural changes. I'm not ready at this point to make a judgement.
>
> I will call for a vote that the freeze deadline be changed if this patch
> is rejected to due to time.  I might lose the vote, but I am going to
> try because if we lose our reputation for fairness, we have lost a lot
> more than a week/month of release time.

I'm guessing the vote is core-only, but +1 from me in any case.  I fully
agree that this patch has had a serious measure of effort put behind it
from the author and is absolutely a capability we desire and need to
have in core.

I'd be happy to jump in and help tonight or tomorrow, but I don't think
there's much I could really contribute right now beyond my support.
Still, please ping me if there's something I can do.
Thanks!
    Stephen

Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Robert Haas
Date:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>> Life is unfair.
>
> True, but I have problems with leaders acting in a way that is unfair to
> those with less power.  Have you considered how demoralizing it is to
> work in an unfair environment?  Unfairness happens, but as leaders, we
> are supposed to try to avoid it, not cause it.

+1.

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



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Robert Haas
Date:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> On 2015-05-14 17:10:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> FWIW, I did go look at this patch, and concluded it was not close enough
>>> to ready to try to squeeze it in now.  (I think Andres isn't convinced
>>> of that yet, but time grows short, and I quite agree with Robert that
>>> committing almost-ready patches at this stage of the game is a bad idea.)
>>
>> I think if there's any patch that deserves some leeway it's this
>> one. It's been been forced into a limbo for nearly half a year; without
>> leaving Andrew many options.
>
> +1.
>
> If Andres is going to try and find a way of getting the patch into
> 9.5, then I think he deserves at least a few extra days. It wasn't as
> if Andrew wasn't all over this from early in the cycle.

+1.

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



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 05:37:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> [ shrug... ] Andrew had unilaterally removed me as committer from that
>> patch back in January or so, so it dropped way down my priority list.
>> I'm willing to move it back up now, but I could do without people
>> expressing a sense of entitlement to my time.  In any case, Andres is

> I am trying not to express any entitlement.  I do have a problem with
> people claiming things that block others.

Well, I was and remain concerned that the patch would do a great deal of
violence to basic system structure.  If I'd had adequate time to work on
it I would have attempted to fix it, but I have not had that kind of time.
In the meantime, the patch was not claimed and I was not particularly
blocking anyone else from claiming it.  Plenty of stuff gets committed
around here without my blessing.

>> currently the committer of record, and if he decides to push it in the
>> next 24 hours, I'm not doing anything more to stand in his way than
>> Robert already did.

> Uh, did Robert delay work on the patch in any way?

I was merely agreeing with the concerns Robert expressed in
<CA+TgmoZt0Q=Odx-pL+9Zc6Qyf1A5_2hMBWgaEUdoWgW=JveP6Q@mail.gmail.com>
that we'd do well to avoid committing any more large-and-not-quite-
fully-baked patches at this point.  If Andres decides it's baked enough,
that's his responsibility and prerogative as a committer.

> True, but I have problems with leaders acting in a way that is unfair to
> those with less power.  Have you considered how demoralizing it is to
> work in an unfair environment?  Unfairness happens, but as leaders, we
> are supposed to try to avoid it, not cause it.

TBH, every time somebody beats me up about not having dropped everything
else to spend a month on this patch, it just makes me want to back away
further.  I haven't had the time, and I really could do without
accusations of that being unfair.
        regards, tom lane



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> * Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote:
>> I will call for a vote that the freeze deadline be changed if this patch
>> is rejected to due to time.  I might lose the vote, but I am going to
>> try because if we lose our reputation for fairness, we have lost a lot
>> more than a week/month of release time.

> I'm guessing the vote is core-only, but +1 from me in any case.  I fully
> agree that this patch has had a serious measure of effort put behind it
> from the author and is absolutely a capability we desire and need to
> have in core.

I should think we'd have learned by now what happens when we delay a
release date to get in some extra feature.  It hasn't worked well in
the past and I see no reason to believe the results would be any more
desirable this time.
        regards, tom lane



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 06:57:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > * Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote:
> >> I will call for a vote that the freeze deadline be changed if this patch
> >> is rejected to due to time.  I might lose the vote, but I am going to
> >> try because if we lose our reputation for fairness, we have lost a lot
> >> more than a week/month of release time.
> 
> > I'm guessing the vote is core-only, but +1 from me in any case.  I fully
> > agree that this patch has had a serious measure of effort put behind it
> > from the author and is absolutely a capability we desire and need to
> > have in core.
> 
> I should think we'd have learned by now what happens when we delay a
> release date to get in some extra feature.  It hasn't worked well in
> the past and I see no reason to believe the results would be any more
> desirable this time.

Right, the importance of the feature is not a reason to delay the
feature freeze.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + Everyone has their own god. +



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Gavin Flower
Date:
On 15/05/15 10:58, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 06:57:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
>>> * Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote:
>>>> I will call for a vote that the freeze deadline be changed if this patch
>>>> is rejected to due to time.  I might lose the vote, but I am going to
>>>> try because if we lose our reputation for fairness, we have lost a lot
>>>> more than a week/month of release time.
>>> I'm guessing the vote is core-only, but +1 from me in any case.  I fully
>>> agree that this patch has had a serious measure of effort put behind it
>>> from the author and is absolutely a capability we desire and need to
>>> have in core.
>> I should think we'd have learned by now what happens when we delay a
>> release date to get in some extra feature.  It hasn't worked well in
>> the past and I see no reason to believe the results would be any more
>> desirable this time.
> Right, the importance of the feature is not a reason to delay the
> feature freeze.
>
Following rules like this is very important, but so is making valid 
exceptions.

Though I'm in no position to judge the importance of this patch, so I 
won't attempt to!


Cheers,
Gavin



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Andres Freund
Date:
On 2015-05-14 23:28:33 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> I've removed the use of GroupedVars and Andrew is right now working on
> structural changes. I'm not ready at this point to make a judgement.

Andrew worked really hard and addressed the voiced concerns with the way
chaining was done.  In my last read through I found a bunch of stylistic
quibbles and a question about behaviour where reading the spec confirmed
that the current implementation is actually correct ( grouping sets +
functional dependencies => weird).

I plan to post a squashed patches from what's in git now in a couple
hours and then, unless something major (issues, protest) comes up, push
PDT late afternoon.



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
andres@anarazel.de (Andres Freund)
Date:
On 2015-05-15 18:00:49 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-05-14 23:28:33 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I've removed the use of GroupedVars and Andrew is right now working on
> > structural changes. I'm not ready at this point to make a judgement.
>
> Andrew worked really hard and addressed the voiced concerns with the way
> chaining was done.  In my last read through I found a bunch of stylistic
> quibbles and a question about behaviour where reading the spec confirmed
> that the current implementation is actually correct ( grouping sets +
> functional dependencies => weird).
>
> I plan to post a squashed patches from what's in git now in a couple
> hours and then, unless something major (issues, protest) comes up, push
> PDT late afternoon.

Here's why I think it's somewhat important that we make progress on the
issue, and why I want to go ahead with this:

In my eye Tom has, I'll assume unintentionally, stalled progress on this
patch for nearly half a year.  Due to Tom's profile it's unlikely that
somebody else is going to seriously tackle a nontrivial patch that Tom
has laid claims to.  Especially if fundamental objections have been
made, without also painting a way forward.  In addition, by commenting
on various triage emails that he'll get to it at some point, Tom in my
view essentially has cemented that claim.

Due to that I think the issue can't be characterized, as done nearby, as
one of unduly laying claims to Tom's time, which obviously is his own to
manage.  The way it turned out people were forced to do that.

I do think that part of the problem is that Andrew (Gierth, not Dunstan)
isn't always easy to work with. Particularly there seems to be a very
unfortunate dynamic between both Tom and Andrew.  But if one is annoyed
about someone's communication style I think it's much better to ignore
that person or publically lash out about it.  Essentially blocking
progress of a patch for months is in my opinion a poor way of handling
it.

If Tom had said a couple months, or even weeks, ago that he doesn't have
time to look into the patch in the 9.5 cycle, I'd not even think about
pressing forward with the patch at this time of the cycle after it had
just undergone significant changes. I like to think that it would have
already gotten in at that point, but who knows.  But either way, we're
not in normal circumstances with regard to this patch.

Our community has a reputation, and increasingly so, of being very
painful to work with. Given the growth in adoption, without a
corresponding growth in experienced long term contributors, I don't
think we can afford feeding that reputation with more justified
causes. We have difficulties keeping up even today.

If the patch were in a bad shape I wouldn't even consider pressing
ahead. But I don't think it is anymore. It's also not a patch that has
the danger to destabilize postgres in the longer term. The code is
fairly specific to grouping sets. Doesn't change the disk format. If we
in hindsight discover the implementation wasn't using the right approach
we can just change it. The worst that will happen is that explain output
changes.  I think many, much more dangerous, patches have been
integreated into 9.5 with less review.

Andres



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Josh Berkus
Date:
On 05/14/2015 03:58 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 06:57:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
>>> * Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote:
>>>> I will call for a vote that the freeze deadline be changed if this patch
>>>> is rejected to due to time.  I might lose the vote, but I am going to
>>>> try because if we lose our reputation for fairness, we have lost a lot
>>>> more than a week/month of release time.
>>
>>> I'm guessing the vote is core-only, but +1 from me in any case.  I fully
>>> agree that this patch has had a serious measure of effort put behind it
>>> from the author and is absolutely a capability we desire and need to
>>> have in core.
>>
>> I should think we'd have learned by now what happens when we delay a
>> release date to get in some extra feature.  It hasn't worked well in
>> the past and I see no reason to believe the results would be any more
>> desirable this time.
> 
> Right, the importance of the feature is not a reason to delay the
> feature freeze.

It has nothing to do with the importance of the feature.  It has
everything to do with fairness.

Regardless of what Tom did or didn't do, what we have here is a major
feature patch which was submitted in a timely fashion, and then *not
reviewed* for multiple commitfests, and now in danger of being bounced
because it's "late". Considering that many other things have been
committed which were submitted significantly later than Grouping Sets,
including some which have been committed with the acknowledgement that
there is more work do do during beta, this would have the appearance of
being prejudicial against Gierth.  Grouping Sets has been working, at
least in demo form, since November.

I really don't think we can, as a project, afford to have the appearance
of prejudice in the review process.  Things are bad enough already; if
contributors feel that the review process is blatantly unfair, they will
resort to underhanded means to get their patches in, and things will
break down completely.  We're only holding stuff together despite short
resources because contributors believe in the inherent fairness of the
process and the committers and that scarce resources will be allocated
evenly.

Note that I am not proposing a general delay in feature freeze.  I am
specifically proposing an additional week for Grouping Sets and *only*
for Grouping Sets.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
"Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
On 05/15/2015 12:32 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:

> Note that I am not proposing a general delay in feature freeze.  I am
> specifically proposing an additional week for Grouping Sets and *only*
> for Grouping Sets.

Core is in charge of releases. I believe like the other semi and formal 
organizations around this community it makes sense for Core to present a 
motion and for that motion to be voted upon. The vote can take place 
publicly (and there is an argument that it should) but it is a vote for 
core not hackers or general.

In short, Josh, Bruce, you are both core members. If you want to call a 
vote, do so. Something like this should suffice:

WHEREAS

1. The Core Committee of PGDG is responsible for releases of PostgreSQL

2. The feature "Grouping Sets" is a major feature for the upcoming 
release of PostgreSQL

THE CORE COMMITTEE RESOLVES THAT

3. In an effort to produce a fair and equitable return for the efforts 
put in by contributors of the Grouping Sets patch, the core committee 
will extend feature freeze for the Grouping Sets patch for exactly 7 days.

4. This extension is for the Grouping Sets patch and the Grouping Sets 
patch only.

5. Should a committable patch not be produced within 7 days, the patch 
shall be pushed back into the queue for the production release of 
PostgreSQL.

Sincerely,

JD

P.S. Note that I have seen the "final" patch that hit the list about 45 
minutes ago.



-- 
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Announcing "I'm offended" is basically telling the world you can't
control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Jim Nasby
Date:
On 5/13/15 7:46 PM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote:
>>> * ctidscan as an example of custom-scan
>>> > >
>>> > >This basically hasn't gotten any attention, which may mean nobody cares
>>> > >enough to justify putting it in the tree.  We need to either push it to
>>> > >next CF or reject altogether.
>> >
>> >Agreed.  I was fine with never committing this.  I don't think we have
>> >a requirement that every hook or bit of functionality we expose at the
>> >C level must have an example in core.  But other people (you?  Simon?)
>> >seemed to want a demonstration in the core repository.  If that's
>> >still a priority, I am willing to work on it more for 9.6, but there
>> >is not time now.
>> >
> If no other people required it again, I don't think this module should
> be kept in core and also I'm not favor to push ctidscan to v9.6 development
> cycle. It intends to demonstrate custom-scan interface, however, it is
> not certain an example always needs to be in-core.

FWIW, having TIDGreaterOperator would be very useful for anyone trying 
to un-bloat a table, so it'd be nice if this was at least available as a 
PGXN extension.
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Jim Nasby
Date:
On 5/14/15 5:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> True, but I have problems with leaders acting in a way that is unfair to
>> >those with less power.  Have you considered how demoralizing it is to
>> >work in an unfair environment?  Unfairness happens, but as leaders, we
>> >are supposed to try to avoid it, not cause it.
> TBH, every time somebody beats me up about not having dropped everything
> else to spend a month on this patch, it just makes me want to back away
> further.  I haven't had the time, and I really could do without
> accusations of that being unfair.

FWIW, I don't think that's what people are expressing an issue with. 
Rather, while you were marked as committer no one else was working on it 
even thought they might have had you not been marked. I think (or at 
least hope) people understand that things happen, especially when $JOB 
intervenes.

OTOH, once you were no longer marked as committer I don't think it's 
fair to hold you accountable for people not stepping back up.
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Andres Freund
Date:
On 2015-05-13 11:38:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Looking at what remains open in the current commitfest:

As of now the remaining items !bugfix entries are:

> * GIN fillfactor
>
> I'd like to put this one on Heikki's plate as well, since he's touched
> the GIN code more than anyone else lately.

While sad, I think this is going to have to be moved.

> * Additional role attributes
>
> Is this ready to commit?  Stephen's call.

This was still being discussed/spec'ed recently, so I think it's not too
bad to move this now.

> * catalog view to pg_hba.conf file
>
> Greg Stark is marked as committer of record on this.

A bit sad again.


I think we can close the commitfest now? Moving these three entries to
the next one?


Andres



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> I think we can close the commitfest now? Moving these three entries to
> the next one?

Yeah, I don't think any of the remaining entries are committable.
        regards, tom lane



Re: Triaging the remaining open commitfest items

From
Michael Paquier
Date:
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-05-13 11:38:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> * GIN fillfactor
>>
>> I'd like to put this one on Heikki's plate as well, since he's touched
>> the GIN code more than anyone else lately.
>
> While sad, I think this is going to have to be moved.

Yeah, I was rather confident in what Alexander did here. But life is
life, and so is deadline.

>> * Additional role attributes
>>
>> Is this ready to commit?  Stephen's call.
>
> This was still being discussed/spec'ed recently, so I think it's not too
> bad to move this now.

Moved to next CF.

>
>> * catalog view to pg_hba.conf file
>>
>> Greg Stark is marked as committer of record on this.
>
> A bit sad again.

Moved to next CF.

> I think we can close the commitfest now? Moving these three entries to
> the next one?

And CF closed.
-- 
Michael