Re: postponing some large patches to 9.2

sfrost@snowman.net (Stephen Frost) writes:
> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
>> - Range Types.  This is a large patch which was submitted for the
>> first time to the last CommitFest of the cycle, and the first version
>> that had no open TODO items was posted yesterday, three-quarters of
>> the way through that last CommitFest.  Some good review has been done.
>>  While more is probably needed, I think we should feel good about
>> what's been accomplished and mark this one Returned with Feedback.
>
> I don't agree w/ punting Range Types.  Range Types were discussed as
> far back as the 2010 developer meeting, were discussed quite a bit
> again starting in October and throughout the fall, and Jeff has
> regularly been posting updates to it.  Given how thorough Jeff is, my
> feeling is that this patch is more than ready for beta.  My impression
> is also that it's not as invasive or destablizing as the others and
> while it wasn't being posted to the previous commit fests, it was
> clearly being worked on, updated, and improved.

I generally mirror those thoughts.  Range Types don't seem invasive or
destabilizing, and the code base has been deployed for quite some time
as an extension ("not quite contrib").  It would be disappointing to
drop this one when it is mighty close.

>> - synchronous replication.  Based on some looking at this today, I am
>> somewhat doubtful about the possibility of me or anyone else beating
>> this completely into shape in time for 9.2, unless we choose to extend
>> the deadline by several weeks.  Simon said that he would have time to
>> finish this in the next two weeks, but, as noted, the CommitFest is
>> scheduled to be over in ONE week, and it looks to me like this is
>> still pretty rough.  However, there's a lot of good stuff in here, and
>> I think it might be practical to get some portion of it committed even
>> if we can't agree on all of it.  I recommend we give this one a little
>> more time to shake out before giving up on it.
>
> It really would be nice to have this, but I agree that it's pretty late
> in the game for it to be in the state is appears to be in. :/  It also
> seems to have been stalled for the past couple of months, which doesn't
> bode well for it, in my view.

The "stall" troubles me, and doesn't bode terribly well for 9.1.
-- 
Rules  of the  Evil  Overlord #39.  "If  I absolutely  must ride  into
battle, I  will certainly not ride  at the forefront of  my Legions of
Terror, nor will I seek out my opposite number among his army."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>