Re: Mammoth in Core?

Takahiro Itagaki wrote:
> The conclusion is splitting existing projects into some 'modules',
> and getting the modules one by one into core. Voted features are here:
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/ClusterFeatures
>
This page was a bit messy for someone who didn't attend the meeting to
follow. I just cleaned it up so that the features are listed in voting
order, and to have more inter-page links. It's better, but could use
some more work still.

There are a few things I noted that I didn't see in the voting order; I
moved those all into another section. If anyone who was there can help
prioritize those it would be helpful. Also, the voting included "XID
set", but I didn't see any section that clearly matched that, so there
may be a missing description section there too.

Stepping back for a second, there are three big picture things that I
think need to be sorted out before it's possible for this to be useful
guidance for something like suggesting how JD might best fit his Mammoth
work into the broad work being done in this area, which I consider a
subset of the larger important question "how can people help here?":

-There are dependencies that exist regardless of what order people would
like to see the features at. For example, the one I thought I saw
listed and therefore documented is that the "Modification trigger into
core" feature presumes you've already resolved "Generalized Data
Queue". Are there more of those? Does "Function scan push-down" depend
on "Export snapshots" already being done? Those are the kind of
questions I'm left with when reading.

-Who if anyone is actually working in this area already with prototypes
or at all? In some cases these are listed (like notes referencing
Slony/Londiste etc.); it would be helpful to explicitly nail those down
in every case. For the Mammoth example, that might help identify which
components they have a uniquely useful piece for.

-Is there anyone who's taken on responsibility for working on any of
these specific parts yet? When we had a similar work prioritization
session at the PGCon developer's meeting, most of the action items there
came with a clearly labeled person on the hook who was working on them.
I don't see any notion like that from this meeting's outcome.

--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.com