CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Abhijit Menon-Sen
Тема CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)
Дата
Msg-id 20130116082118.GA6000@toroid.org
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Parallel query execution  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)  (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)  (Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
At 2013-01-16 02:07:29 -0500, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, we've totally lost control of
> the CF process.

What can we do to get it back on track?

I know various people (myself included) have been trying to keep CF3
moving, e.g. sending followup mail, adjusting patch status, etc.

I want to help, but I don't know what's wrong. What are the committers
working on, and what is the status of the "Ready for commiter" patches?
Is the problem that the patches marked Ready aren't, in fact, ready? Or
is it lack of feedback from authors? Or something else?

Would it help at all to move all pending items (i.e. anything less than
ready) from CF3 to CF4, just so that the committers have only one list
to look at, while reviewers can work on the other? Only psychological,
but maybe that's better than the current situation?

-- Abhijit



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Abhijit Menon-Sen
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Review of "pg_basebackup and pg_receivexlog to use non-blocking socket communication", was: Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #7534: walreceiver takes long time to detect n/w breakdown
Следующее
От: Jeevan Chalke
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: passing diff options to pg_regress