From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 2016-01 Commitfest |
Date: | 2016-01-11 14:38:39 |
Message-ID: | 20160111143839.GA710062@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
These are the numbers after one week of commitfest work:
Needs review: 65.
Waiting on Author: 14.
Ready for Committer: 6.
Committed: 14.
Total: 99.
The attentive reader might notice that we grew one more patch since last
week, which is the "VACUUM progress checker" thingy that has been under
active review.
We went from 8 committed patches to 14. At the current rate of 6
patches per week it would take us 12 weeks to close the commitfest,
which doesn't sound very good.
There are a number of patches in Needs-review state which haven't seen
any pgsql-hackers activity in a long while. I'm particularly concerned
about the following patches:
* Support multiple synchronous standby servers
* Access method extendability
* Partial sort
* add 'waiting for replication' to pg_stat_activity.state
* More stable query plans via more predictable column statistics
* Statistics for array types
* Declarative partitioning
* Table Partition + Join Pushdown
* multivariate statistics
It would be very helpful of a reviewer to look at those patches.
Some committers have assigned patches to themselves:
* Andres Freund
Speedup timestamp/time/date output functions
* Peter Eisentraut
remove wal_level archive
* Tom Lane
Rework index access method interface
* Teodor Sigaev
New gist vacuum
* Stephen Frost
Default Roles
* Simon Riggs
Fix handling on XLOG_RUNNING_XACTS generated by bgwriter on idle
systems
I assume this means they intend to commit them in some reasonable
timeframe (possibly after some rework). If this is not the case, please
let us know.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Kellerer | 2016-01-11 14:44:59 | Re: 9.4-1207 behaves differently with server side prepared statements compared to 9.2-1102 |
Previous Message | Vladimir Sitnikov | 2016-01-11 14:14:28 | Re: Re: 9.4-1207 behaves differently with server side prepared statements compared to 9.2-1102 |