Re: CommitFest 2009-07: Yay, Kevin! Thanks, reviewers!

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>
>> I don't think I want to try to handle two in a row, and I think your style
>> is better suited
>> than mine to the final CF for a release, but I might be able to take on
>> the 2010-11 CF if people want that
>
> Ha, you just put yourself right back on the hook with that comment, and
> Robert does seem like the right guy for CF-4 @ 2011-01.  Leaving the
> question of what's going to happen with CF-2 next month.

My reputation precedes me, apparently. Although I appreciate everyone
so far being willing to avoid mentioning exactly what that reputation
might be. :-)

> I think the crucial thing with the 2010-09 CF is that we have to get serious
> progress made sorting out all the sync rep ideas before/during that one.
>  The review Yeb did and subsequent discussion was really helpful, but the
> scope on that needs to actually get nailed down to *something* concrete if
> it's going to get built early enough in the 9.1 release to be properly
> reviewed and tested for more than one round.  Parts of the design and scope
> still feel like they're expanding to me, and I think having someone heavily
> involved in the next CF who is willing to push on nailing down that
> particular area is pretty important.  Will volunteer myself if I can stay on
> schedule to make it past the major time commitment sink I've had so far this
> year by then.

Sitting on Sync Rep is a job and a half by itself, without adding all
the other CF work on top of it. Maybe we should try to find two
vi^Holunteers: a CommitFest Manager (CFM) and a Major Feature
Babysitter (MBS). At any rate, we should definitely NOT wait another
month to start thinking about Sync Rep again. I haven't actually
looked at any of the Sync Rep code AT ALL but IIRC Heikki expressed
the view that the biggest thing standing in the way of a halfway
decent Sync Rep implementation was a number of polling loops that
needed to be replaced with something that wouldn't introduce
up-to-100ms delays. And so far we haven't seen a patch for that.
Somebody write one. And then let's get it reviewed and committed RSN.
It may seem like we're early in the release cycle yet, but for a
feature of this magnitude we are not. We committed way too much big
stuff at the very end of the last release cycle; Hot Standby was still
being cleaned up in May after commit in November. We'll be lucky to
commit sync rep that early.

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