Remaining beta blockers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Remaining beta blockers
Date: 2013-04-27 14:59:32
Message-ID: 9334.1367074772@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

The schedule says we're going to wrap 9.3beta1 on Monday, but it doesn't
feel to me like we are anywhere near ready to ship a credible beta.
Of the items on the 9.3 open-items page,
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_9.3_Open_Items
there are at least three that seem like absolute drop-dead stop-ship issues:

1. The matviews mess. Changing that will force initdb, more than
likely, so we need it resolved before beta1.

2. The checksum algorithm business. Again, we don't get to tinker with
that anymore once we're in beta.

3. The ProcessUtility restructuring problem. Surely we're not going to
ship a beta with persistent buildfarm failures, which even show up
sometimes on non-CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS animals, eg today at
http://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=nightjar&dt=2013-04-27%2009%3A27%3A00

Can we get these resolved by Monday, or must we postpone beta?

As far as #1 goes, I think we have little choice at this point but to
remove the unlogged-matviews feature for 9.3. Various alternatives were
kicked around in the "matview scannability rehash" thread but they were
only marginally less klugy, and nobody's stepped up with a patch anyway.
I will undertake to remove unlogged matviews and replace isscannable-
as-a-file-size-property with isscannable-as-a-reloption (unless anyone
feels it would be better as a separate pg_class column?).

I haven't been paying too close attention to the checksum threads
so I'm not sure where we are on #2.

As for #3, there's a draft patch, who's going to take responsibility
for that?

Anything else that's "must fix"?

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2013-04-27 15:11:38 Re: exactly what is COPY BOTH mode supposed to do in case of an error?
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2013-04-27 10:02:58 Re: exactly what is COPY BOTH mode supposed to do in case of an error?