Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization)

* Andres Freund (andres@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> On 2014-04-07 13:01:52 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > I haven't got any either (except for my little one), which frustrates
> > me greatly.  Not because I'm looking for credit on the time that I've
> > spent in discussions, doing reviews, and I could have sworn there was
> > some patch that I did commit, but because I've not been able to find
> > the larger chunks of time required to get the more complex patches in.
>
> I am a bit confused. To my eyes there's been a huge number of actually
> trivial patches in this commitfest? Even now, there's some:
>
> * Bugfix for timeout in LDAP connection parameter resolution

I can take a look at that (if no one else wants to speak up about it).

> * Problem with displaying "wide" tables in psql

That's not without controvery, as I understand it, but I admit that I
haven't been following it terribly closely.

> * Enable CREATE FOREIGN TABLE (... LIKE ... )

This has definitely got issues which are not trival, see Tom's recent
email on the subject..

> * Add min, max, and stdev execute statement time in pg_stat_statement

This was also quite controversal.  If we've finally settled on this as
being acceptable then perhaps it can get in pretty easily.

> * variant of regclass etc.

This was recently being discussed also.

> * vacuumdb: Add option --analyze-in-stages

Haven't looked at this at all.

> Are all small patches that don't need major changes before getting committed.

That strikes me as optimistic.  I do plan to go do another pass through
the commitfest patches before looking at other things (as Greg also said
he would do); thanks for bringing up the ones you feel are more
managable- it'll help me focus on them.

> Given the trackrecord with testing the project seems to have with
> testing, I don't have much faith in that claim. But even if, it'll only
> get you testing on 2-3 platforms, without noticing portability issues.

This would be another case where it'd be nice if we could give people
access to the buildfarm w/o having to actually commit something.

> I think it'd be a different discussion if this where CF-1 or so. But
> we're nearly *2* months after the the *end* of the last CF.

There wouldn't be any discussion if it was CF-1 as I doubt anyone would
object to it going in (or at least not as strongly..), even if it was
submitted after CF-1 was supposed to be over with remaining patches.
It's the threat of getting punted to the next release that really makes
the difference here, imv.
Thanks,
    Stephen