On 30 March 2015 at 01:08, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18 December 2014 at 02:48, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> >> David, if you can update your patch with some docs to explain the >> behaviour, it looks complete enough to think about committing it in >> early January, to allow other patches that depend upon it to stand a >> chance of getting into 9.5. (It is not yet ready, but I see it could >> be). >> > > I've been thinking of bumping this patch to the June commitfest as the patch > only exists to provide the basic infrastructure for things like parallel > aggregation, aggregate before join, and perhaps auto updating materialised > views. > > It seems unlikely that any of those things will happen for 9.5. > Does anybody object to me moving this to June's commitfest?
If the patch is ready, it should stay in the queue. A global decision to move all uncommitted patches to June might occur later, but that's a different decision. I don't think we should be prejudging that situation, all it would do is hide the extent of the real problem with reviews. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, RemoteDBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers