Re: CF 2009-07: initial reviewing assignments

Initial reviewing assignments are below. Please go to
http://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/inprogress and
edit the patch you've been assigned, adding your name as a reviewer.
Please do this right away so that it's clear which patches still need
reviewers to be assigned. If you don't want to review the patch that
I've assigned you for some reason, please email me and I'll try to
assign you a different one. Please try to complete your initial
review by end-of-day Saturday (four days from now).

In order to preserve my sanity, it is absolutely critical that you
update http://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view/inprogress
each and every time you review a patch. Go to the patch, set the
comment type to "Review", and enter the message-ID of your post to
-hackers and a brief summary of the main thrust of your review.
Submit. Then edit the patch. If you concluded that the patch is
ready for final review by a committer, set the status of the patch to
"Ready for Committer". If you concluded that the patch requires
changes, set the status to "Waiting on Author". If the patch looks
like it can't reasonably be adjusted in time for this CommitFest, set
the status to "Returned with Feedback" or "Rejected" as seems
appropriate to you. In some cases you will be summarizing the
opinions of others (e.g. committers or other community members who
have weighed in on the topic), not just your own feelings. In other
cases, no one else will weigh in; you'll have to do what you think
best.

If new versions of the patch are posted, the patch author SHOULD add a
"Patch"-type comment and change the patch status back to "Needs
Review". But they might not - in which case, please do it for them.
The most difficult part of managing a CommitFest by far is figuring
out what state all the patches are in, and the more you can keep the
CommitFest up to date, the easier that will be.

I would like to set a general expectation that patches which need more
work should be resubmitted within 3-4 days of the time that you post
your review, and that patches which still need significant work after
being resubmitted twice should be deferred to the next CommitFest. We
haven't discussed these thresholds on pgsql-hackers, so I can't claim
there's any consensus behind them, but I think they're about what is
reasonable. Big, significant patches may need a bit more leeway than
this, and that is fine. Small patches with obvious bugs should be
bounced very aggressively (for example, if the patch that you are
assigned is less than 500 lines and fails to compile, or pass
regression tests, or crashes, or just doesn't work, it's probably fair
to move that to "Returned with Feedback" without further ado. We're
trying to commit the patches that are done now, not the ones that will
be done a month from now; we're trying to provide feedback on the
others.

When you are done reviewing the patch you've been assigned, or at
least far enough along that you don't mind starting on another one,
please reply to THIS list and let me know. I would like to set up a
better system for managing this process so that everyone doesn't need
to spam the list every time they need a new assignment, but if I get
run over by a truck and all of the information is only in my private
email, we'll be hosed - so copy the list when requesting a new
assignment.

Thanks,

...Robert

==SECURITY==

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
- Security Enhanced PostgreSQL

Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>
- Security checks on LargeObject

Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
- GRANT ON ALL IN schem

==REPLICATION==

Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>
- Provide support for multiplexing SIGUSR1 signal

Martin Pihlak <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com>
- Non-blocking communication between a frontend and a backend (pqcomm)

I am not assigning a reviewer for Sync Rep right now because I think
we should review the two patches above (which are prerequisites)
first. However, we will definitely need someone (hopefully more than
one person) to review this later in the CommitFest.

==PERFORMANCE==

Nathan Boley <npboley(at)gmail(dot)com>
- join removal

Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>
- ALTER TABLE ... ALTER COLUMN ... SET DISTINCT

Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
- Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic

Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>
- Set PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag in HOT pruning

Dan Colish <dcolish(at)gmail(dot)com>
- Avoid manual shift-and-test logic in AllocSetFreeIndex

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
- remove {join,from}_collapse_limit, add enable_join_ordering

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
- Indexam API changes

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
- Index-only quals

Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)toroid(dot)org>
- Merge append

==SQL LANGUAGE FEATURES==

Bernd Helmle <bernd(at)oopsware(dot)de>
- Named and mixed notation for PL

Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>
- Support for EEEE in to_char()

Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
- Deferrable Unique constraints

Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>
- Generalized Index Constraints

==CONTRIB MODULES==

David E. Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
- hstore enhancements

==ERROR REPORTING==

Wolfgang Wilhelm <wolfgang20121964(at)yahoo(dot)de>
- Have ParseConfigFile report all parsing errors

Dickson S. Guedes <listas(at)guedesoft(dot)net>
- report key values in duplicate-key errors

==MISCELLANEOUS==

Josh Williams <joshwilliams(at)ij(dot)net>
- Polygons

Hi Robert,

On Wednesday 15 July 2009 04:56:38 Robert Haas wrote:
> When you are done reviewing the patch you've been assigned, or at
> least far enough along that you don't mind starting on another one,
> please reply to THIS list and let me know. I would like to set up a
> better system for managing this process so that everyone doesn't need
> to spam the list every time they need a new assignment, but if I get
> run over by a truck and all of the information is only in my private
> email, we'll be hosed - so copy the list when requesting a new
> assignment.
I don't think I can do much more for your enable_join_ordering patch at the
moment without further input from Tom and others. So if you want to give me a
new patch, fine.
If it matters, I started looking into your EXPLAIN patches when you posted
them...

Andres

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:52 AM, Andres Freund<andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> If it matters, I started looking into your EXPLAIN patches when you posted
> them...

OK, great, why don't you take a crack at those. Don't forget to add
your name next to them on the wiki.

Thanks,

...Robert

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>
> - Provide support for multiplexing SIGUSR1 signal
>

Hi,

I post a review of this, but i'm not sure how to make further tests
for it, and because the patch seems to be following Tom's advice i
marked it as ready for committer...

should i wait until it gets committed or will you assign me some other patch?

--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Jaime
Casanova<jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
> should i wait until it gets committed or will you assign me some other patch?

How about this one next?

Make pg_restore --clean to delete existing large objects

Thanks,

...Robert

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:42:38PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Jaime
> Casanova<jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
> > should i wait until it gets committed or will you assign me some other patch?
>
> How about this one next?
>
> Make pg_restore --clean to delete existing large objects

Can I have one, too? My patch submitter just concluded his patch needs
reworking.

--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com

On Jul 16, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:42:38PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Jaime
>> Casanova<jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
>>> should i wait until it gets committed or will you assign me some
>>> other patch?
>>
>> How about this one next?
>>
>> Make pg_restore --clean to delete existing large objects
>
> Can I have one, too? My patch submitter just concluded his patch needs
> reworking.

Sure, how 'bout DefaultACLs?

...Robert

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:44:51PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:42:38PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Jaime
>>> Casanova<jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
>>>> should i wait until it gets committed or will you assign me some
>>>> other patch?
>>>
>>> How about this one next?
>>>
>>> Make pg_restore --clean to delete existing large objects
>>
>> Can I have one, too? My patch submitter just concluded his patch needs
>> reworking.
>
> Sure, how 'bout DefaultACLs?

For future reference, would it be easier if a rrreviewer-in-need-of-work just
picked a patch, or would you like to be the Gatekeeper? (Insert reference to
The Keymaster here...)

--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Joshua Tolley<eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> For future reference, would it be easier if a rrreviewer-in-need-of-work just
> picked a patch, or would you like to be the Gatekeeper? (Insert reference to
> The Keymaster here...)
>

no one stops you from doing that, but this way we keep some kind of order

--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157

On Jul 14, 2009, at 7:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:

> When you are done reviewing the patch you've been assigned, or at
> least far enough along that you don't mind starting on another one,
> please reply to THIS list and let me know

I finished my review of hstore, but I'm going to be pretty slammed
next week getting slides together for OSCON. Shall I ping you again
late in the week to give you my "thank you, sir, may I have another?"?

Best,

David

Hi,
>
>>>> should i wait until it gets committed or will you assign me some other
>>>> patch?
>>>
>>> How about this one next?
>>>
>>> Make pg_restore --clean to delete existing large objects
>>
>> Can I have one, too? My patch submitter just concluded his patch needs
>> reworking.
>
> Sure, how 'bout DefaultACLs?
>

Didn't DefaultACLs patch come after the cut-off time? Should we look
at this patch now at all?

Regards,
Nikhils

> ...Robert
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-rrreviewers mailing list (pgsql-rrreviewers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-rrreviewers
>

--
http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Jul 17, 2009, at 3:44 AM, Nikhil Sontakke <nikhil(dot)sontakke(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
> wrote:

> Hi,
>>
>>>>> should i wait until it gets committed or will you assign me some
>>>>> other
>>>>> patch?
>>>>
>>>> How about this one next?
>>>>
>>>> Make pg_restore --clean to delete existing large objects
>>>
>>> Can I have one, too? My patch submitter just concluded his patch
>>> needs
>>> reworking.
>>
>> Sure, how 'bout DefaultACLs?
>>
>
> Didn't DefaultACLs patch come after the cut-off time? Should we look
> at this patch now at all?

I believe that it was 2 hours and ~10 minutes before the cutoff.

...Robert
>
>>
>>

On Jul 17, 2009, at 1:58 AM, "David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Jul 14, 2009, at 7:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> When you are done reviewing the patch you've been assigned, or at
>> least far enough along that you don't mind starting on another one,
>> please reply to THIS list and let me know
>
> I finished my review of hstore, but I'm going to be pretty slammed
> next week getting slides together for OSCON. Shall I ping you again
> late in the week to give you my "thank you, sir, may I have another?"?

Yes, that sounds perfect.

...Robert

Everyone is most definitely encouraged to just pick up a patch. In the
past we've found people are often reluctant to do so especially for
patche that seem to require specialized background. The rrreviewers
are there to give people that extra encouragement.

--
Greg

On 2009-07-17, at 5:02 AM, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:44:51PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:42:38PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Jaime
>>>> Casanova<jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
>>>>> should i wait until it gets committed or will you assign me some
>>>>> other patch?
>>>>
>>>> How about this one next?
>>>>
>>>> Make pg_restore --clean to delete existing large objects
>>>
>>> Can I have one, too? My patch submitter just concluded his patch
>>> needs
>>> reworking.
>>
>> Sure, how 'bout DefaultACLs?
>
> For future reference, would it be easier if a rrreviewer-in-need-of-
> work just
> picked a patch, or would you like to be the Gatekeeper? (Insert
> reference to
> The Keymaster here...)
>
> --
> Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
> End Point Corporation
> http://www.endpoint.com

On Jul 17, 2009, at 12:02 AM, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:44:51PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Jul 16, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Joshua Tolley <eggyknap(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:42:38PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Jaime
>>>> Casanova<jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
>>>>> should i wait until it gets committed or will you assign me some
>>>>> other patch?
>>>>
>>>> How about this one next?
>>>>
>>>> Make pg_restore --clean to delete existing large objects
>>>
>>> Can I have one, too? My patch submitter just concluded his patch
>>> needs
>>> reworking.
>>
>> Sure, how 'bout DefaultACLs?
>
> For future reference, would it be easier if a rrreviewer-in-need-of-
> work just
> picked a patch, or would you like to be the Gatekeeper? (Insert
> reference to
> The Keymaster here...)

Well, there is some method to my madness here: I'm trying to make sure
all of the patches get reviewed, with the most important ones done
first and the ones the committers are already looking at done last
(but not skipped entirely if no progress is being made). And I'm
making some effort to guess the complexity of the patch and the skill
level of each reviewer, which as you can probably imagine is not easy
since I have highly incomplete information. But having said all that
if you like to pick your own targets, that's fine with me. Just
please (a) pick the most difficult patches you think you can do
something useful with and (b) post your intentions here and on the app.

Two particular areas of difficulty: we really need some more top-notch
reviewing of the index-related patches (multiple reviewers would be
very good), and we desperately need more people to test the Windows
shared memory fix.

...Robert

--On Dienstag, Juli 14, 2009 22:56:38 -0400 Robert Haas
<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Bernd Helmle <bernd(at)oopsware(dot)de>
> - Named and mixed notation for PL

This one seems to have two separate patches, i've started to review them
separately.

I've replied directly to the original threads in the past during review, do
we have any policy to create a separate "[Review]" thread now or can I keep
my current behavior? Since we are linking the review messages directly from
the commitfest into the archives it shouldn't make any differences....

--
Bernd

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Bernd Helmle<mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> wrote:
> I've replied directly to the original threads in the past during review, do
> we have any policy to create a separate "[Review]" thread now or can I keep
> my current behavior? Since we are linking the review messages directly from
> the commitfest into the archives it shouldn't make any differences....

I prefer replies on the original threads, personally.

...Robert

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Jaime
> Casanova<jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
>> should i wait until it gets committed or will you assign me some other patch?
>
> How about this one next?
>
> Make pg_restore --clean to delete existing large objects
>

that one was easy :)
next?

--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 2:47 AM, Jaime
Casanova<jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Jaime
>> Casanova<jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
>>> should i wait until it gets committed or will you assign me some other patch?
>>
>> How about this one next?
>>
>> Make pg_restore --clean to delete existing large objects
>>
>
> that one was easy :)
> next?

Can you take a look at the latest version of "Writeable CTEs"?

Thanks,

...Robert

Hi,

Le 15 juil. 09 à 04:56, Robert Haas a écrit :
> When you are done reviewing the patch you've been assigned, or at
> least far enough along that you don't mind starting on another one,
> please reply to THIS list and let me know.

As I'm waiting on author, I've begun working on the profiler patch
(first reading of patch done, applied to head done (was clean),
compiling in progress.
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=99

It seems just getting some unassigned patch of interest is one of the
way it's happening, so there I went :)
--
dim

Le 18 juil. 09 à 21:20, Dimitri Fontaine a écrit :
> As I'm waiting on author, I've begun working on the profiler patch

Done, returned with feedback (failure in tests).

Ok I won't have time tomorrow to be doing some more reviewing, but on
Monday I should be able to arrange some time again. So if you (Robert)
don't plan to fix pg_attribute.h bitrot in the SET DISTINCT patch, I'd
be free for you to assign me another one.

Maybe I could even try to fix the bitrot myself, it doesn't look so
hard, just lots of careful work for anyone who has never done it
before...

Regards,
--
dim

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Dimitri Fontaine<dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> wrote:
> Le 18 juil. 09 à 21:20, Dimitri Fontaine a écrit :
>>
>> As I'm waiting on author, I've begun working on the profiler patch
>
> Done, returned with feedback (failure in tests).

OK.

> Ok I won't have time tomorrow to be doing some more reviewing, but on Monday
> I should be able to arrange some time again. So if you (Robert) don't plan
> to fix pg_attribute.h bitrot in the SET DISTINCT patch, I'd be free for you
> to assign me another one.

If you have time take a look at "Parser's hook based on FuncCall". I
think Tom has commented on this previously so I'm not sure how much
reviewing remains to be done, but maybe you can bring things to a
conclusion somehow.

> Maybe I could even try to fix the bitrot myself, it doesn't look so hard,
> just lots of careful work for anyone who has never done it before...

As far as I can see it's entirely whitespace changes. I sent an email
to Peter asking him for a status on the other patch, but I don't know
if he'll get back to me. I will fix it if need be, just trying to
avoid duplicate work. But, if you'd like to fix it, that would less
work for me, so I'm on board. :-)

...Robert

Le 18 juil. 09 à 22:57, Robert Haas a écrit :
> If you have time take a look at "Parser's hook based on FuncCall". I
> think Tom has commented on this previously so I'm not sure how much
> reviewing remains to be done, but maybe you can bring things to a
> conclusion somehow.

I'll read the threads and the patch once I'm done with yours, then. Up
until then, it's free for anybody :)

>> Maybe I could even try to fix the bitrot myself, it doesn't look so
>> hard,
>> just lots of careful work for anyone who has never done it before...
>
> As far as I can see it's entirely whitespace changes.

This is mixed with your column addition, so I didn't see that. Now
I've just kept your version of the file, which solves the conflict:
merge is done, builds ok, first basic test means I have more work ahead:

Table "pg_catalog.pg_attribute"
Column | Type | Modifiers
---------------+-----------+-----------
...
attstattarget | integer | not null
attdistinct | real | not null
attlen | smallint | not null

I'm fixing the status in commitfest application.

Regards,
--
dim

I'd better get some sleep now. :)

On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 22:56 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
> - Deferrable Unique constraints

I submitted the initial review.

I can take on another patch, but I can't promise a review before 7/26.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 22:56 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>
> - Generalized Index Constraints

I don't think I will have an updated, mostly-complete patch before about
7/26 (psql and pg_dump support, new syntax, etc.). I'm just trying to be
realistic so that you can schedule review assignments better.

If that bumps me to the end of the queue, or into the next commitfest,
so be it. I think I got the information I need to know that I'm taking
the right approach with my patch, which is what I needed.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

2009/7/19 Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>:
> On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 22:56 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>
>> - Generalized Index Constraints
>
> I don't think I will have an updated, mostly-complete patch before about
> 7/26 (psql and pg_dump support, new syntax, etc.). I'm just trying to be
> realistic so that you can schedule review assignments better.
>
> If that bumps me to the end of the queue, or into the next commitfest,
> so be it. I think I got the information I need to know that I'm taking
> the right approach with my patch, which is what I needed.
>

Thanks for the update Jeff. Since there are substantial changes yet
to be made in the user-facing behaviour, I'm thinking this is one of
those cases where we should bump it to the next CF.

I moved the patch to 2009-09 and grabbed "pg_dump Add dumping of
comments on columns of composite types".

Cheers,
BJ

On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Can you take a look at the latest version of "Writeable CTEs"?
>

I think with Tom's comment we are probably done with this patch for
this commitfest, i've marked it as "returning with feedback".
if you don't mind it, can i take "Patch: return query and dropped
columns"? or if you think there's anything else that i can take i will
be pleased...

--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157

On Jul 19, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec
> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Can you take a look at the latest version of "Writeable CTEs"?
>>
>
> I think with Tom's comment we are probably done with this patch for
> this commitfest, i've marked it as "returning with feedback".
> if you don't mind it, can i take "Patch: return query and dropped
> columns"? or if you think there's anything else that i can take i will
> be pleased...

Your idea sounds good to me.

...Robert

Hi Robert,

On Thursday 16 July 2009 15:48:34 Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:52 AM, Andres Freund<andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > If it matters, I started looking into your EXPLAIN patches when you
> > posted them...
> OK, great, why don't you take a crack at those. Don't forget to add
> your name next to them on the wiki.
Unless you see need for more review on the EXPLAIN patches (I do not know
where to look further atm) you can give another one to me - I can't promise to
be finished before Thursday or so though.

Andres

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:17 AM, Andres Freund<andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> On Thursday 16 July 2009 15:48:34 Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:52 AM, Andres Freund<andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> > If it matters, I started looking into your EXPLAIN patches when you
>> > posted them...
>> OK, great, why don't you take a crack at those.  Don't forget to add
>> your name next to them on the wiki.
> Unless you see need for more review on the EXPLAIN patches (I do not know
> where to look further atm) you can give another one to me - I can't promise to
> be finished before Thursday or so though.

OK, how about:

TOAST MAIN out-of-line reluctantly

...Robert

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> When you are done reviewing the patch you've been assigned, or at
> least far enough along that you don't mind starting on another one,
> please reply to THIS list and let me know.

As Stephen noted, the index am API changes has been reviewed by Tom an
he makes some suggestions to Heikki so that one should be marked as
waiting on author.

And because "Index-only quals" depends on the first there is no reason
to review it. actually i think the latter doesn't have to be in this
commitfest but in the next one.

So i will take this one if nobody objects: "Determine cient_encoding
from client locale"

--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Jaime
Casanova<jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
> So i will take this one if nobody objects: "Determine cient_encoding
> from client locale"

Sounds good.

...Robert

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> OK, how about:
>
> TOAST MAIN out-of-line reluctantly

Andres,

Scratch that, Tom just committed it.

Try this one... Improvements for dict_xsyn extended synonym dictionary

Thanks,

...Robert

Hi,

Le 18 juil. 09 à 23:47, Dimitri Fontaine a écrit :
> This is mixed with your column addition, so I didn't see that. Now
> I've just kept your version of the file, which solves the conflict:
> merge is done, builds ok, first basic test means I have more work
> ahead:
>
> I'd better get some sleep now. :)

Failed. Damn it.

As I won't be there this WE (starting friday morning), I won't be able
to work on this until next monday. Hoped to have some time for it
during the day, but some projects came out of the void specially for
me @work.

And I even managed to loose my git tree while learning about git clean
-fdx and git reset --hard and all, so I don't have the updated patch
handy. If starting the tests on monday is too far in the future,
please assign to another RRR.

Regards,
--
dim

On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Jaime
Casanova<jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec> wrote:
>
> As Stephen noted, the index am API changes has been reviewed by Tom an
> he makes some suggestions to Heikki so that one should be marked as
> waiting on author.
>

i see this one untouched in the commitfest app, should be marked as
waiting on author?

> And because "Index-only quals" depends on the first there is no reason
> to review it. actually i think the latter doesn't have to be in this
> commitfest but in the next one.
>

i still think this one should go the next commitfest while there are
no concensus on the above changes but at least should be marked as
waiting on author as well

--
Atentamente,
Jaime Casanova
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
Cel. +59387171157