Re: 2017-03 Commitfest In Progress

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 2017-03 Commitfest In Progress
Date: 2017-03-04 07:15:53
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQFrFxo9ZmDSQa+tsxaxJpGubWVvABr0qOGWpa_DNJzMg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Fix the optimization to skip WAL-logging on table created in the same
> transaction (originally submitted to CommitFest 2016-03)
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/13/528/
> Michael perhaps-unwisely set the committer on this one to Heikki,
> which led me and perhaps other committers to think he was going to
> take care of it. But he may not have intended to do that; it's best to
> let committers claim patches for themselves rather than assign them.
> That having been said, I think it's bad when a known data-corrupting
> bug goes unfixed for a year and a half

FWIW, at the end of the thread Heikki has mentioned that he would move
those patches forward to commit, so setting him as the owner looked
quite adapted at this time. If it is an issue that a hacker sets the
committer field in a CF entry and that only a committer should do it,
I'd suggest to make that clear. Well if that's a problem I just won't
do that anymore.

> SCRAM Authentication (originally submitted to CommitFest 2015-09)
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/13/993/
> This patch has been evolving until very recently, and maybe still, so
> it's maybe unfair to put it into the same category as the previous
> two, but I don't think anybody is going to be very happy about waiting
> another year for an alternative to MD5 authentication. Even though
> there's not, to my knowledge, an effective preimage attack for MD5,
> surely we want to have alternatives in case one is developed. That's
> not going to be something we can back-patch. Heikki did quite a bit
> of work to drive this forward, but seems to have had little time to
> push that work forward lately. I don't know if there's another
> committer who can pick this up.

No idea. Let's see.

> I initially thought I could help, but
> the fact that the thread has ended up a discussion of Unicode
> normalization has intimidated me a bit.

The learning curve is steep, but once you understand what the string
normalizations are made of there is not much more going on.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-03-04 07:16:39 Re: Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm.
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-03-04 07:09:39 Re: Automatic cleanup of oldest WAL segments with pg_receivexlog