Re: CommitFest 2009-09, two weeks on

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> OTOH, I'd hate to hold the commitfest hostage for that. Perhaps it
>> should be returned to author at this point, I should move on to other
>> patches to get the commitfest closed ASAP, and continue reviewing and
>> polishing that right after the commitfest.
>
> FWIW, I'd rather you kept focusing on those two patches while other
> committers work on the rest.  From what I've seen you're finding a
> whole lot of broken or at least questionable stuff, and even if they're
> individually minor issues, that adds up to a lot of instability.
>
> I agree that these patches need special attention and should not be
> treated exactly the same as we'd treat smaller patches.

I tend to agree. I think it's reasonable for you (meaning Heikki) to
devote far more time and effort to those patches than you would to
other patches implementing more run-of-the-mill features, and it seems
like there is no shortage of things to find and fix. I don't think
that having you take a break to work on other patches is going to be
to the overall benefit of the project (and many of the more
significant remaining patches look like they are right up Tom's alley
anyway).

That having been said, if Hot Standby is still closer to commit than
Streaming Replication, it might make sense to push Streaming
Replication off until November, or at least post-CommitFest. Do you
have any sense of how soon you'll feel confident to commit either
patch?

...Robert