Thread: Commitfest manager for 2022-03
Hi, The final commitfest for pg15 will start in a few days, and I didn't see any discussion on it or anyone volunteering to be a CFM. I thought it would be a good idea to send this reminder now and avoid the same situation as the last commitfest, to avoid unnecessary pain for the CFM(s). Is there any volunteer? For the record there are already 246 active patches registered.
I would like to volunteer. On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 at 05:31, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > The final commitfest for pg15 will start in a few days, and I didn't see any > discussion on it or anyone volunteering to be a CFM. > > I thought it would be a good idea to send this reminder now and avoid the same > situation as the last commitfest, to avoid unnecessary pain for the CFM(s). > > Is there any volunteer? > > For the record there are already 246 active patches registered. > > -- greg
Hi Greg, On 2/25/22 12:39, Greg Stark wrote: > I would like to volunteer. > > On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 at 05:31, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Is there any volunteer? Since I've done the March CF for the last seven years, I thought it would be good if I chimed in. I've been agonizing a bit because I have travel planned during March and while I *could* do it I don't think I'd be able to do a good job. I've been hoping somebody would volunteer, so I'm all in favor of you being CF. Regards, -David
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 01:58:55PM -0600, David Steele wrote: > On 2/25/22 12:39, Greg Stark wrote: >> I would like to volunteer. > > Since I've done the March CF for the last seven years, I thought it would be > good if I chimed in. I've been agonizing a bit because I have travel planned > during March and while I *could* do it I don't think I'd be able to do a > good job. That's a time-consuming task, and there have been little occasions to enjoy travelling lately, so have a good time :) > I've been hoping somebody would volunteer, so I'm all in favor of you being > CF. Greg as CFM would be fine. It's nice to see someone volunteer. -- Michael
Attachment
On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 02:42:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 01:58:55PM -0600, David Steele wrote: > > On 2/25/22 12:39, Greg Stark wrote: > >> I would like to volunteer. > > > I've been hoping somebody would volunteer, so I'm all in favor of you being > > CF. > > Greg as CFM would be fine. It's nice to see someone volunteer. +1, thanks a lot Greg! Note that the last CF of a major version is probably even more work than "regular" CF, so if other people are interested there's probably room for multiple CFMs.
On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 at 01:33, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 02:42:33PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 01:58:55PM -0600, David Steele wrote: > > > On 2/25/22 12:39, Greg Stark wrote: > > >> I would like to volunteer. > > > > > I've been hoping somebody would volunteer, so I'm all in favor of you being > > > CF. > > > > Greg as CFM would be fine. It's nice to see someone volunteer. > > +1, thanks a lot Greg! > > Note that the last CF of a major version is probably even more work than > "regular" CF, so if other people are interested there's probably room for > multiple CFMs. I do have the time available. What I don't necessarily have is insight into everything that needs to be done, especially behind the scenes. So if I could have someone to give me tips about things I'm missing or review the things I am doing to see that I've covered everything that would be great. -- greg
Can I suggest to update the CF APP to allow: | Target version: 16 I also suggest to update patches to indicate which are (not) being considered for v15. A few specific ones from myself: |https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/2573/ |pg_dump - read data for some options from external file Ready for Committer 15 Marked RFC by Daniel Gustafsson since 2021-10-01. Is it more likely than not to be included in v15, or should the "v15" be removed ? |https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3499/ |libpq compression Waiting on Author 15 I re-raised the same concerns made ~12 months ago but haven't heard back. WOA since 35 days. Unlikely to be considered/included in v15. |https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3571/ |Add LZ4 compression in pg_dump Needs review This patch was just submitted on 2022-02-25. I did a lot of the same things this patch does for a previous patch submission (32/2888) for pg_dump/ZSTD, so I could review this, if there were interest to include it in v15. |https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/2349/ |Global temporary table Needs review 15 The handling/hijacking of pg_class and pg_statistic is not likely to be acceptable. I doubt this will be progressed for v15. |https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3448/ |reduce impact of lengthy startup and checkpoint tasks Needs review 15 I think this is in the design/concept phase, and not likely for v15, except maybe in reduced scope. |https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/2906/ |Row filtering for logical replication If I'm not wrong, this is merged and should be closed? For my own patches, it'd be helpful if someone would suggest if any are (not) likely to be progressed for v15. These are marked RFC, but have no "committer" set. Are they all targetting v15? https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/2863/ Function to log backtrace of postgres processes Ready for Committer Should target v15 ? https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/2897/ Faster pglz compression Ready for Committer 15 Tomas, are you still planning to merge this one ? https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/2992/ Allow batched insert during cross-partition updates Ready for Committer https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3073/ Add callback table access method to reset filenode when dropping relation Ready for Committer https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3384/ use has_privs_for_role for predefined roles Ready for Committer 15 Do all of the RFC patches target v15 (except bugfixes) ? https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/?status=3 These are not marked as targetting any version .. are any of them being considered for v15 ? https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/2903/ Parallel Hash Full Join Needs review https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3508/ Avoid smgrimmedsync() during index build and add unbuffered IO API Needs review https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3182/ automatically generating node support functions Needs review https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3183/ Detectable crashes and unlogged table resets Needs review Jeff Davis (jdavis) These are set as "targetting v15", but have no committer set. If someone thinks it's unrealistic they'll be included in v15, I suggest to update not to say so. https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3272/ Add system view tracking shared buffer actions Needs review 15 https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3224/ Fix ExecRTCheckPerms() inefficiency with many prunable partitions Needs review 15 https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3270/ Cache tuple routing info during bulk loads into partitioned tables Needs review 15 https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3461/ In-place persistence change of a relation (fast ALTER TABLE ... SET LOGGED with wal_level=minimal) Needs review 15 https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3539/ Allow parallel plan for referential integrity checks Needs review 15 https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3397/ Prefetching in recovery, take II Needs review 15 Thomas Munro (macdice) https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/2482/ jsonpath syntax extensions Needs review 15 https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/2901/ SQL/JSON: functions Needs review 15 https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/2902/ SQL/JSON: JSON_TABLE Needs review 15 https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3099/ Asymmetric partition-wise JOIN Needs review 15 https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3293/ Tags in errordata Needs review 15 https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3358/ Update relfrozenxmin when truncating temp tables Needs review 15 Greg Stark (stark) https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3490/ Pluggable toaster Needs review 15 https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3500/ Collecting statistics about contents of JSONB columns Needs review 15 Tomas Vondra (fuzzycz), https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/2138/ Incremental Materialized View Maintenance Needs review 15 https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3565/ Add relation and block-level filtering to pg_waldump Needs review 15 David Christensen (dwc-pgguru) https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3436/ remove exclusive backup mode Needs review 15 David Steele (dsteele) https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/3457/ pg_stat_toast Needs review 15
On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 06:37:21PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote: > Can I suggest to update the CF APP to allow: > | Target version: 16 > > I also suggest to update patches to indicate which are (not) being considered > for v15. I don't really understand what that field is supposed to mean. But now that we're in the final pg15 commit fest, wouldn't it be simpler to actually move the patches for which there's a agreement that they can't make it to pg15? Tagging them and letting them rot for a month isn't helpful for the authors or the CFMs, especially when there are already 250 patches that needs to be handled. There's already an on-going a discussion for the PGTT patchset, maybe it should also happen for some of the thread you mentioned.
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 04:51:16PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > I don't really understand what that field is supposed to mean. But now that > we're in the final pg15 commit fest, wouldn't it be simpler to actually move > the patches for which there's a agreement that they can't make it to pg15? > Tagging them and letting them rot for a month isn't helpful for the authors or > the CFMs, especially when there are already 250 patches that needs to be > handled. Yes, I don't see any point in having a new tag just to mark patches that will have to be moved to the next CF anyway. These should just be moved to the July one rather than stay in the March one. -- Michael
Attachment
On Sat, Feb 26, 2022, at 9:37 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote:
|Row filtering for logical replicationIf I'm not wrong, this is merged and should be closed?
I think Amit forgot to mark it as committed. Done.
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 11:37 PM Euler Taveira <euler@eulerto.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 26, 2022, at 9:37 PM, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > |https://commitfest.postgresql.org/37/2906/ > |Row filtering for logical replication > If I'm not wrong, this is merged and should be closed? > > I think Amit forgot to mark it as committed. Done. > I was waiting for some build farm cycles to complete but it is fine to mark it now. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 04:51:16PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 06:37:21PM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > Can I suggest to update the CF APP to allow: > > | Target version: 16 > > > > I also suggest to update patches to indicate which are (not) being considered > > for v15. > > I don't really understand what that field is supposed to mean. It can mean whatever we decide it's convenient for it to mean. I suppose its primary purpose may have been to indicate which backbranch a bugfix applies to (?) I find it useful to indicate whether or not a patch is intended to be considered for the next release. If a patch is targetting v15, it's more interesting to review. @Thomas Munro: I think it'd be useful if cfbot would also show 1) the "target version" (if any); and, 2) whether a patch has a committer set. -- Justin
Hi, On 2022-02-26 16:12:27 -0500, Greg Stark wrote: > I do have the time available. What I don't necessarily have is insight > into everything that needs to be done, especially behind the scenes. One thing that desperately needs doing, particularly during the last commitfest, is looking through CF entries and pruning stuff that shouldn't be there anymore or that are in the wrong state. I just went through the list of patches that are failing on http://cfbot.cputube.org/index.html There were several CF entries that haven't made progress in months marked as "needs review", despite the last things on the thread being asks of the author(s). One can't just automatically mark all failing runs as "waiting on author" because sometimes there are issues with somebody else posting an incremental diff confusing cfbot or spurious test failures... If a patch fails to apply and it looks to be a "real patch" clearly some action has to be taken by the author, so marking entries as "waiting on author" is good. Greetings, Andres Freund
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 21:48, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 2022-02-26 16:12:27 -0500, Greg Stark wrote: > > I do have the time available. What I don't necessarily have is insight > > into everything that needs to be done, especially behind the scenes. > > One thing that desperately needs doing, particularly during the last > commitfest, is looking through CF entries and pruning stuff that shouldn't be > there anymore or that are in the wrong state. Thanks > One can't just automatically mark all failing runs as "waiting on author" > because sometimes there are issues with somebody else posting an incremental > diff confusing cfbot or spurious test failures... What I'm seeing is patches that are failing with either the 027_stream_regress.pl failure that I see is being actively worked on in another thread or simply a timeout which I'm not sure but may be the same issue? But I'll do a pass and then do another pass later in the week when those problems may have been ironed out. -- greg