| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Phil Sorber <phil(at)omniti(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: logical changeset generation v4 - Heikki's thoughts about the patch state |
| Date: | 2013-01-24 18:37:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20130124183717.GG16126@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> Now, the bad news is, I don't think it's very reasonable to try to
> commit this to 9.3. I think it is just too much stuff too late in the
> cycle. I've reviewed some of the patches from time to time but there
> is a lot more stuff and it's big and complicated and it's not really
> clear that we have the interface quite right yet, even though I think
> it's also clear that we are a lot of closer than we were. I don't
> want to be fixing that during beta, much less after release.
The only way to avoid this happening again and again, imv, is to get it
committed early in whatever cycle it's slated to release for. We've got
some serious challenges there though because we want to encourage
everyone to focus on beta testing and going through the release process,
plus we don't want to tag/branch too early or we create more work for
ourselves.
It would have been nice to get this into 9.3, but I can certainly
understand needing to move it back, but can we get a slightly more
specific plan around getting it in then?
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2013-01-24 18:44:09 | Re: Strange Windows problem, lock_timeout test request |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2013-01-24 18:34:33 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |