Re: [PATCH] Incremental sort

On 2017-04-03 22:18:21 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > To me this hasn't gotten even remotely enough performance evaluation.
> > And I don't think it's fair to characterize it as pending since 2013,
> > given it was essentially "waiting on author" for most of that.
> 
> This is undeniably a patch which has been kicking around for a lot of
> time without getting a lot of attention, and if it just keeps getting
> punted down the road, it's never going to become committable.

Indeed, it's old.  And it hasn't gotten enough timely feedback.

But I don't think the wait time can meaningfully be measured by
subtracting two dates:
The first version of the patch, as a PoC, has been posted 2013-12-14,
which then got a good amount of feedback & revisions, and then stalled
till 2014-07-12.  There a few back-and forths yielded a new version.
From 2014-09-15 till 2015-10-16 the patch stalled, waiting on its
author.  That version had open todos ([1]), as had the version from
2016-03-13 [2], which weren't addressed 2016-03-30 - unfortunately that
was pretty much when the tree was frozen.  2016-09-13 a rebased patch
was sent, some minor points were raised 2016-10-02 (unaddressed), a
larger review was done 2016-12-01 ([5]), unaddressed till 2017-02-18.
At that point we're in this thread.

There's obviously some long waiting-on-author periods in there.  And
some long needs-review periods.


> Alexander's questions upthread about what decisions the committer who
> took an interest (Heikki) would prefer never really got an answer, for
> example.  I don't deny that there may be some work left to do here,
> but I think blaming the author for a week's delay when this has been
> ignored so often for so long is unfair.

I'm not trying to blame Alexander for a week's worth of delay, at all.
It's just that, well, we're past the original code-freeze date, three
days before the "final" code freeze. I don't think fairness is something
we can achieve at this point :(.  Given the risk of regressions -
demonstrated in this thread although partially adressed - and the very
limited amount of benchmarking done, it seems unlikely that this is
going to be merged.

Regards,

Andres


[1] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdvhwMsG69exCRUGK3ms-ng0PSPcucH5FU6tAaM-qL-1%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com
[2] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdvzjYGLTyA-8ib8UYnKLPrewd9Z%3DT4YJNCRWiHWHHweWw%40mail.gmail.com
[3] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdtCcHZ-mLWzsFrRCvHpV1LPSaOGooMZ3sa40AkwR=7ouQ@mail.gmail.com
[4] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdvj1Tdi2WA64ZbBp5-yG-uzaRXzk3K7J7zt-cRX6YSd0A@mail.gmail.com
[5] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoZapyHRm7NVyuyZ+yAV=U1a070BOgRe7PkgyrAegR4JDA@mail.gmail.com
[6] http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfds1waRZ=NOmueYq0sx1ZSCnt+5QJvizT8ndT2=etZEeAQ@mail.gmail.com