From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Closing out the June commitfest |
Date: | 2012-07-16 01:22:28 |
Message-ID: | 26988.1342401748@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> Which three patches didn't get any review?
> Or to be more specific: I'm in favor of closing out everything which has
> had some review. I think the three patches without any review should be
> dealt with case-by-case.
Well, I might be wrong, but the ones that don't show any activity in the
CF app are
tuplesort memory usage: grow_memtuples
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=818
Trim trailing NULL columns
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=840
Restrict ALTER FUNCTION CALLED ON NULL INPUT
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=854
(Note: some of the individual patches in the "logical replication" herd
haven't been given individual reviews, but certainly that patchset as a
whole has gotten its fair share of time and more.)
None of the three above seem to me to be blocking further work,
so I don't have a hard time with punting them to September.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2012-07-16 01:22:36 | Re: pgbench--new transaction type |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-07-16 01:11:39 | Re: [patch] libpq one-row-at-a-time API |