open items

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: open items
Date: 2024-05-09 19:28:13
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaZqRyVLNutg3Q0n=2p+SqoWopYcMv6D=bTiyq2-fSG0Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

Just a few reminders about the open items list at
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_17_Open_Items --

- Please don't add issues to this list unless they are the result of
development done during this release cycle. This is not a
general-purpose bug tracker.

- The owner of an item is the person who committed the patch that
caused the problem, because that committer is responsible for cleaning
up the mess. Of course, the patch author is warmly invited to help,
especially if they have aspirations of being a committer some day
themselves. Other help is welcome, too.

- Fixing the stuff on this list is a time-boxed activity. We want to
put out a release on time. If the stuff listed here doesn't get fixed,
the release management team will have to do something about it, like
start yelling at people, or forcing patches to be reverted, which will
be no fun for anyone involved, including but not limited to the
release management team.

A great number of things that were added as open items have already
been resolved, but some of the remaining items have been there for a
while. Here's a quick review of what's on the list as of this moment:

* Incorrect Assert in heap_end/rescan for BHS. Either the description
of this item is inaccurate, or we've been unable to fix an incorrect
assert after more than a month. I interpret
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/54858BA1-084E-4F7D-B2D1-D15505E512FF%40yesql.se
as a vote in favor of committing some patch by Melanie to fix this.
Either Tomas should commit that patch, or Melanie should commit that
patch, or somebody should say why that patch shouldn't be committed,
or someone should request more help determining whether that patch is
indeed the correct fix, or something. But let's not just sit on this.

* Register ALPN protocol id with IANA. From the mailing list thread,
it is abundantly clear that IANA is in no hurry to finish dealing with
what seems to be a completely pro forma request from our end. I think
we just have to be patient.

* not null constraints break dump/restore. I asked whether all of the
issues had been addressed here and Justin Pryzby opined that the only
thing that was still relevant for this release was a possible test
case change, which I would personally consider a good enough reason to
at least consider calling this done. But it's not clear to me whether
Justin's opinion is the consensus position, or perhaps more
relevantly, whether it's Álvaro's position.

* Temporal PKs allow duplicates with empty ranges. Peter Eisentraut
has started working with Paul Jungwirth on this. Looks good so far.

* Rename sslnegotiation "requiredirect." option to "directonly". I
still think Heikki has implemented the wrong behavior here, and I
don't think this renaming is going to make any difference one way or
the other in how understandable it is. But if we're going to leave the
behavior as-is and do the renaming, then let's get that done.

* Race condition with local injection point detach. Discussion is ongoing.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Cramer 2024-05-09 19:33:40 Re: request for database identifier in the startup packet
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2024-05-09 19:26:04 Re: Parallel CREATE INDEX for GIN indexes