Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules)

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules)
Date: 2009-01-26 11:53:33
Message-ID: 937d27e10901260353x36f23184v13028873f9158740@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

> I'm sure it depends on the user. Users that are more interested in the
> features we already have in the bag like window functions and WITH-clause,
> will obviously prefer to release earlier without hot standby. And users that
> want hot standby (or SE-postgresql) will prefer to delay the release and
> have those features included.

At LinuxLive (UK) the overwhelming majority of people I spoke to over
three days wanted hot standby and replication (preferably
multi-master, but thats another story). Window functions, recursive
queries, SE PostgreSQL, updatable views and other new features were
barely mentioned.

> There's still a list of non-resolved issues that I estimate will take about
> two weeks to address. And there's a good possibility that new issues arise,
> which require yet more time.

That doesn't seem like it's worth deferring such a useful feature for
12+ months for - especially as the work is clearly ongoing and can
happen in parallel with work on other patches.

As I've pointed out before, we're not a commercial company working for
our shareholders, we're a FOSS project working for our end users. If
we can include an important and popular feature like this at the
expense of a few weeks extra wait for the release, it seems to me that
we'll be serving our users far better overall than making a fair
percentage of them wait another 12 months for work that is more or
less complete.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-01-26 12:06:45 Re: problem with archive_command as suggested by documentation
Previous Message Zeugswetter Andreas OSB sIT 2009-01-26 11:48:24 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle