Re: Triage on old commitfest entries - JSON_PATH

Op 03-10-2021 om 21:14 schreef Tom Lane:
> As I threatened in another thread, I've looked through all of the
> oldest commitfest entries to see which ones should maybe be tossed,
> on the grounds that they're unlikely to ever get committed so we
> should stop pushing them forward to the next CF.
>
> An important note to make here is that we don't have any explicit
> mechanism for saying "sorry, this patch is perhaps useful but it
> seems that nobody is going to take an interest in it". Closing
> such a patch as "rejected" seems harsh, but R-W-F isn't very
> appropriate either if the patch never got any real review.
> Perhaps we should create a new closure state?
>
> I looked at entries that are at least 10 CFs old, as indicated by
> the handy sort field. That's a pretty small population: 16 items
> out of the 317 listed in the 2021-09 CF. A quick look in recent
> CFs shows that it's very rare that we commit entries older than
> 10 CFs.
>
> Here's what I found, along with some commentary about each one.
>
> Patch Age in CFs

May I add one more?

SQL/JSON: JSON_TABLE started 2018 (the commitfest page shows only 4 as
'Age in CFs' but that obviously can't be right)

Although I like the patch & new functionality and Andrew Dunstan has
worked to keep it up-to-date, there seems to be very little further
discussion. I makes me a little worried that the time I put in will end
up sunk in a dead project.

Erik Rijkers

>
> Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries 23
> Last substantive discussion 2021-01, currently passing cfbot
>
> It's well known that I've never liked this patch, so I can't
> claim to be unbiased. But what I see here is a lot of focus
> on specific test scenarios with little concern for the
> possibility that other scenarios will be made worse.
> I think we need some new ideas to make progress.
> Proposed action: RWF
>
> Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers 18
> Last substantive discussion 2021-07, currently failing cfbot
>
> This has been worked on fairly recently, but frankly I'm
> dubious that we want to integrate a 2PC XM into Postgres.
> Proposed action: Reject
>
> schema variables, LET command 18
> Last substantive discussion 2021-09, currently passing cfbot
>
> Seems to be actively worked on, but is it ever going to get
> committed?
>
> Remove self join on a unique column 16
> Last substantive discussion 2021-07, currently passing cfbot
>
> I'm not exactly sold that this has a good planning-cost-to-
> usefulness ratio.
> Proposed action: RWF
>
> Index Skip Scan 16
> Last substantive discussion 2021-05, currently passing cfbot
>
> Seems possibly useful, but we're not making progress.
>
> standby recovery fails when re-replaying due to missing directory which was removed in previous replay 13
> Last substantive discussion 2021-09, currently passing cfbot
>
> This is a bug fix, so we shouldn't drop it.
>
> Remove page-read callback from XLogReaderState 12
> Last substantive discussion 2021-04, currently failing cfbot
>
> Not sure what to think about this one, but given that it
> was pushed and later reverted, I'm suspicious of it.
>
> Incremental Materialized View Maintenance 12
> Last substantive discussion 2021-09, currently passing cfbot
>
> Seems to be actively worked on.
>
> pg_upgrade fails with non-standard ACL 12
> Last substantive discussion 2021-03, currently passing cfbot
>
> This is a bug fix, so we shouldn't drop it.
>
> Fix up partitionwise join on how equi-join conditions between the partition keys are identified 11
> Last substantive discussion 2021-07, currently passing cfbot
>
> This is another one where I feel we need new ideas to make
> progress.
> Proposed action: RWF
>
> A hook for path-removal decision on add_path 11
> Last substantive discussion 2021-03, currently passing cfbot
>
> I don't think this is a great idea: a hook there will be
> costly, and it's very unclear how multiple extensions could
> interact correctly.
> Proposed action: Reject
>
> Implement INSERT SET syntax 11
> Last substantive discussion 2020-03, currently passing cfbot
>
> This one is clearly stalled. I don't think it's necessarily
> a bad idea, but we seem not to be very interested.
> Proposed action: Reject for lack of interest
>
> SQL:2011 application time 11
> Last substantive discussion 2021-10, currently failing cfbot
>
> Actively worked on, and it's a big feature so long gestation
> isn't surprising.
>
> WITH SYSTEM VERSIONING Temporal Tables 11
> Last substantive discussion 2021-09, currently failing cfbot
>
> Actively worked on, and it's a big feature so long gestation
> isn't surprising.
>
> psql - add SHOW_ALL_RESULTS option 11
> Last substantive discussion 2021-09, currently passing cfbot
>
> This got committed and reverted once already. I have to be
> suspicious of whether this is a good design.
>
> Split StdRdOptions into HeapOptions and ToastOptions 10
> Last substantive discussion 2021-06, currently failing cfbot
>
> I think the author has despaired of anyone else taking an
> interest here. Unless somebody intends to take an interest,
> we should put this one out of its misery.
> Proposed action: Reject for lack of interest
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>