Robert,
> I think it might be time to revisit this issue. SR is in, and we have
> a week left in the CF, and we have all of the above patches plus 5
> small ones left to deal with. rbtree is close to being committable, I
> think; knngist has not been reviewed yet; you (Tom) have claimed the
> frame options patch but I haven't seen any update on it in a while; I
> doubt either of the other two are ready to commit but I'm not sure how
> far they have to go.
I think, as previously discussed, that we should bounce knngist. It's
a complex patch and nobody saw anything of it until Jan 15, so I don't
feel bad about it. Mark Cave-Ayland was going to review it, but
apparently felt that rbtree was the higher priority.
Also, this one:
Provide rowcount for utility SELECTs
... based on your last review does not look anywhere near ready.
We know the following because of endless discussion on -hackers; what
these patches seem to be suffering from is endless arguments over
relatively minor points, it just requires someone to make a decision on
implementation method:
Add on_trusted_init and on_untrusted_init to plperl
Faster CREATE DATABASE by delaying fsync
For the rest, can we just have reviewer reports on readiness?
Writeable CTEs
Package namespace and Safe init cleanup for plperl
More frame options in window functions
Fix large object support in pg_dump
Actually, looking at that list, I think we're in pretty darned good
shape. That's a pretty small list of things left to commit. Keep in
mind that last year at this time (week 3 of CF-last) we still had over a
dozen patches completely unreviewed!
--Josh Berkus