On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:50 PM, Christopher Browne <cbbro...@gmail.com> wrote: > Two items still undergoing work (collations, sync rep) weren't at that > level of readiness, needing some mere "dusting off" to make them > ready. Rather, they needed substantial examination and modification > before they'd be ready. And, while this has doubtless aroused some > ire, it doesn't intrinsically make those items "broken."
I don't think it really aroused that much ire. It's pretty clear that both of those patches cost us something on the schedule, and I would have preferred to see them committed sooner and with fewer bugs. But they are great features. Unfortunately, we have a tendency to leave things to the last minute, and that's something I think we could improve. We have gotten a bit better but there is clearly room for further improvement. With beta having gotten pushed out to the end of the month, there is a real chance that we are going to end up releasing in the fall again, and I would have much preferred July 1. But given how long CF4 lasted and how much surgery was required afterwards, it was an unfixable problem. It's not going to get any better unless we get more serious about getting these big features done early in the cycle, or postponing them to the next release if they aren't. Anyway, I'm drifting off topic: nothing against the patches, at least on my part, just want to make the schedule. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
