Re: feature freeze and beta schedule

----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>; pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2015 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] feature freeze and beta schedule

Andres,

* Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
> On 2015-04-30 08:39:45 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > If you have spare cycles, there are a number of relevant patches still
> > open in the commit fest.
>
> I was wondering what the actual state of the commitfest is. I'm thus
> going through all the open items. Here's my thoughts:

Thanks!

> * fsync $PGDATA recursively at startup
> Bugfix, i.e. not really tied to CF

We really need to segregate the two.. By that what I mean is this: I
want an "always-open" "bugfix" CF, which allows us to keep track of
bugfix patches. Having something about "applies to versions X, Y, Z"
would be nice too...

/me prods Magnus

> * Async execution of postgres_fdw.
>
> Later iterations of the patch haven't gotten much review yet. The
> original version of the patch is just from 2014-12-15.
> => Should imo be moved to the next CF

I'd love to see this happen, but I haven't got cycles to spend on it
between now and feature freeze. :/

> * INNER JOIN removals
> Seem far to controversial to consider comitting in 9.5.
> => Returned (or even rejected :()

I'd really like to see this too, but I agree it's not something for 9.5
at this point.

> * Aggregate State Combine Support
> I think we pretty clearly need something roughly like this. It seems
> equally clear that this isn't going to happen in 9.5
> => Returned with feedback

Agreed.

> * Allow "snapshot too old" error, to prevent bloat
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1361166406.1897609.1424371443904.JavaMail.yahoo%40mail.yahoo.com
> talked about a new version that afaics never materialized
> => Returned with feedback

As mentioned earlier, this is a committer's patch and if Kevin shows up
with a new patch based on that discussion which others can live with,
then I'm for having the capability over not. As such, not sure if RFW
is the right state for it to be in at this point.

> * Sending WAL receiver feedback regularly even if the receiver is under
> heavy load
> Imo more of a bugfix than a feature. I.e. doesn't really concern the
> CF scheduling.

Another one for that "bugfix" CF...

> * Auditing extension
> I'm unclear on the status here. Abhijit said he'll have a look.

It was recently set to ready-for-committer by Sawada (he and David have
been going back and forth with testing, fixing, etc). Fujii took a look
and had a few comments which David responded to. As is probably
obvious, it's certainly something that I'd like to see happen as it's an
oft-requested feature. Certainly would be great if Abhijit could look
at it.

> * Parallel Seq scan
> In my opinion the topic has progressed greatly. But at the same time
> it doesn't seem like it's in a state we should consider for 9.5.
> => Return?

I'd certainly love to see it happen but I've not been following the
recent discussion and so I'm not really sure if it's ready or not.

> * RLS: row-level security, more review
> More of a placeholder item. There seem to various open items.

I've addressed a few of them lately.. If there are more then I've lost
track of what they are and would certainly welcome folks reminding me.
In particular, the issue from Craig about the misleading error has been
addressed and I believe we've worked out the RLS+INSERT ... ON CONFLICT
questions.

> * Deparsing utility commands
> IIUc Alvaro intends to commit a minimal version soon.

+1

> * INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}
> Heikki, Peter and I have spent a fair amount of time on this. I believe
> we can commit it early next week.

Yay!

> * Additional role attributes
> I agree with Robert's point in
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmobH4tdccajn7VmPT-1RqBdzLYcAz5jUz4bJ%3Drkqs_gADA%40mail.gmail.com
> and thus think that this patch isn't ready for 9.5.

I agree it needs more discussion and am planning on posting both a much
simpler patch (which removes the complicated changes to pg_dump) and
putting it on the new thread to get some real discussion about it.
Robert's point that these changes need discussion is certainly spot on
and that may lead to it not getting into 9.5, but I'm not quite ready to
punt on it yet given that we've been working on it for going on 6(?)
months now.

> * catalog view to pg_hba.conf file
> Greg is marked as a comitter here.

I'm happy to help with this also.

> * pg_file_settings view: To know detail of config files via SQL
> Seems to be ready.

I'm looking at this too.

> * Add pg_settings.pending_restart column
> Looks like it coudl quickly be committed.

No objection here.

Thanks!

Stephen