| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Leonardo F <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [FWD] About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch |
| Date: | 2010-02-15 09:16:58 |
| Message-ID: | 4B79110A.3090809@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Leonardo F wrote:
> But there's something I don't understand: I didn't add the patch to the next
> CommitFest because I thought it could never be added in 9.0 (because it adds a
> new "feature" which has never been discussed). Hence I thought it should have
> been "discussed" (not properly "reviewed") out of a CommitFest.
> The "Submission timing" section talks about "beta phase", not "alpha phase", so
> I'm stll confused...
> In other words: should patches that won't be included in the next release
> (because it's too late) still added to the next CommitFest?
Yes. There's not going to be any more commitfests for this release, so
the next commitfest is for 9.1.
(don't worry about the lack of enthusiasm for the patch, people are just
very busy with 9.0 and don't have the energy to think about 9.1 material
at this point)
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Takahiro Itagaki | 2010-02-15 09:27:12 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add psql tab completion for DO blocks. |
| Previous Message | Leonardo F | 2010-02-15 09:10:09 | Re: [FWD] About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch |