Re: getting to beta

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> ... Most urgently, I believe we need a bit more committer bandwidth.  I
>> believe that I could tackle either the SSI patches or the pg_upgrade &
>> typed tables issue, or I could try to make a dent in the collation
>> stuff, but I don't think I can cover two of those areas and I
>> definitely can't cover all three.
>
> I intend to return to the collations issues as soon as I've knocked off
> the GUC assign-hooks patch.  That's taking longer than I thought (there
> are a *lot* of assign hooks) but I think I'll be able to finish it today
> or tomorrow.  I have yet to read any of the SSI code, so I can't offer
> much help in that area.
>
>> The other minor issues are:
>
>> - do latches have memory ordering problems?  I think the consensus is
>> that they work OK the way we're using them right now, so maybe we can
>> just drop this item, unless someone wants to pontificate further on
>> it.
>
> I think this can be left as an open issue for now, to remind us that
> some harder stress-testing on affected platforms would be a good thing.

OK, fair enough.

>> - generate_series boundary issue - I think this isn't a new regression
>> so it's probably not a blocker for beta1, but we might still want to
>> try to fix it.
>
> Again, there's no reason that can't stay on the open items list past
> beta1.  We may or may not choose to fix it for 9.1, but it's not a beta
> blocker.

I agree. But again, that's not really what I'm focusing on - the
collations stuff, the typed tables patch, and SSI all need serious
looking at, and I'm not sure who is going to pick all that up.

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