On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 11:44:46PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> writes: >> > I think that those are objectively very large reductions in a cost >> > that figures prominently in most workloads. Based solely on those >> > facts, but also on the fairly low complexity of the patch, it may be >> > worth considering committing this before 9.4 goes into feature freeze, >> >> Personally, I have paid no attention to this thread and have no intention >> of doing so before feature freeze. There are three dozen patches at >> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/commitfest_view?id=21 >> that have moral priority for consideration for 9.4. Not all of them are >> going to get in, certainly, and I'm already feeling a lot of guilt about >> the small amount of time I've been able to devote to reviewing/committing >> patches this cycle. Spending time now on patches that didn't even exist >> at the submission deadline feels quite unfair to me. >> >> Perhaps I shouldn't lay my own guilt trip on other committers --- but >> I think it would be a bad precedent to not deal with the existing patch >> queue first. > > +1
+1 -- 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
