On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2017-04-08 13:09:13 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>> Could you consider the item 2PC on FDW as well? It is marked as "Move
>> to Next CF" early yesterday but I'm not sure that reason..
>
> I've not moved it, but given that it was m
Hi,
On 2017-04-08 13:09:13 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Could you consider the item 2PC on FDW as well? It is marked as "Move
> to Next CF" early yesterday but I'm not sure that reason..
I've not moved it, but given that it was moved just before the feature
freeze, it doesn't seem wrong to me
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 3:37 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> When I started writing this, there were the following reamining CF
>> items, minus bugfix ones which aren't bound by the code freeze.
>>
>> I think it makes sense to go throu
On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 3:37 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When I started writing this, there were the following reamining CF
> items, minus bugfix ones which aren't bound by the code freeze.
>
> I think it makes sense to go through those and see whether it's
> realistic to commit any of them.
Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> My offer to work with you on amcheck verification of WARM invariants
> remains open. If nothing else, structuring things so that verification
> is possible may clarify your design. Formalizing the preconditions,
> postconditions, and legal states for on-disk structures mig
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)
>> > - fair number of people don't think it's ready for v10.
>
> Given the number of votes against putting this
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-04-07 16:28:03 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> > > - can't move to next fest because it's waiting-on-author, which doesn't
>> > > allow that. Doesn't strike me as a useful restriction.
>> >
>> > I agree tha
On 2017-04-07 16:28:03 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > > - can't move to next fest because it's waiting-on-author, which doesn't
> > > allow that. Doesn't strike me as a useful restriction.
> >
> > I agree that that CF app restriction makes little sense.
>
> What the
Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)
> > - fair number of people don't think it's ready for v10.
Given the number of votes against putting this on pg10, I am going to
back off from this patch now, with an ey
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Andres Freund wrote:
>>> Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)
>>> - fair number of people don't think it's ready for v10.
>
>> I'm going over this one now with Pavan, with the intent of getting it in
>> committable
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Andres Freund wrote:
>> Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)
>> - fair number of people don't think it's ready for v10.
> I'm going over this one now with Pavan, with the intent of getting it in
> committable shape.
I have to agree with Andres that this is not som
On 2017-04-07 15:45:33 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)
> > - fair number of people don't think it's ready for v10.
>
> I'm going over this one now with Pavan, with the intent of getting it in
> committable shape.
>
> I may be biased, but the claimed pe
Andres Freund writes:
> I think it makes sense to go through those and see whether it's
> realistic to commit any of them.
> Unique Joins
> - Tom's discussing things with David, not sure.
Working on this one today.
> Generic type subscripting
> - still some review back and forth
> - probably sh
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)
> - fair number of people don't think it's ready for v10.
> - can't move to next fest because it's waiting-on-author, which doesn't
> allow that. Doesn't strike me as a useful restriction.
I agr
Andres Freund wrote:
> Unique Joins
> - Tom's discussing things with David, not sure.
This one was already included-and-removed from 9.6, Tom had said he'd
give it priority during the current cycle as I recall. It seems unfair
that it's still waiting for review on the last day of pg10's last
com
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think it makes sense to go through those and see whether it's
> realistic to commit any of them.
>
> Ready for Committer:
>
> Add GUCs for predicate lock promotion thresholds:
> - claimed by Kevin, should be easy enough
I was planning on p
Hi,
When I started writing this, there were the following reamining CF
items, minus bugfix ones which aren't bound by the code freeze.
I think it makes sense to go through those and see whether it's
realistic to commit any of them.
Ready for Committer:
Add GUCs for predicate lock promotion thre
17 matches
Mail list logo
