Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04

2011-02-17 Thread Itagaki Takahiro
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 13:15, Shigeru HANADA wrote: > When I've used COPY TO for testing file_fdw, I got wrong result. > It would be because DR_copy's processed is not initialized in > CreateCopyDestReceiver().  Please see attached patch. Oops, thanks, applied. -- Itagaki Takahiro -- Sent vi

Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04

2011-02-17 Thread Shigeru HANADA
On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 11:22:04 +0900 Itagaki Takahiro wrote: > Thanks comments. I've applied the COPY API patch. When I've used COPY TO for testing file_fdw, I got wrong result. # Actually csv_branches has only 10 rows. postgres=# copy (select * from csv_branches) to '/home/hanada/DB/BINARY/branc

Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04

2011-02-16 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 06:49 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On mån, 2011-02-14 at 11:49 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Perhaps a thought for next time would be to offset things a bit. eg: > > > > CF 2011-03 (or whatever): > > 2011-02-14: Patches should all be submitted > > 2011-02-14: Reviewers

Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04

2011-02-15 Thread Alex Hunsaker
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 09:49, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> Here's where I think we are with this CommitFest. > >  Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04 > > I'm gonna go out on a limb and hope you meant

Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04

2011-02-15 Thread Itagaki Takahiro
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 02:14, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> I've been kind of wondering why you haven't already committed it.  If >> you're confident that the code is in good shape, I don't particularly >> see any benefit to holding off. > > +10. The sooner the better. Thanks comments. I've applied t

Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04

2011-02-15 Thread Chris Browne
robertmh...@gmail.com (Robert Haas) writes: > It does, but frankly I don't see much reason to change it, since it's > been working pretty well on the whole. Andrew was on point when he > mentioned that it's not obvious what committers get out of working on > other people's patches. Obviously, the

Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04

2011-02-15 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 02/15/2011 06:55 AM, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 01:27, Robert Haas wrote: However, file_fdw is in pretty serious trouble because (1) the copy API patch that it depends on still isn't committed and (2) it's going to

Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04

2011-02-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 01:27, Robert Haas wrote: >> However, file_fdw is in pretty serious trouble because (1) the copy >> API patch that it depends on still isn't committed and (2) it's going >> to be utterly broken if we don't do somet

Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04

2011-02-15 Thread Itagaki Takahiro
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 01:27, Robert Haas wrote: > However, file_fdw is in pretty serious trouble because (1) the copy > API patch that it depends on still isn't committed and (2) it's going > to be utterly broken if we don't do something about the > client_encoding vs. file_encoding problem; the

Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04

2011-02-14 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On mån, 2011-02-14 at 11:49 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote: > Perhaps a thought for next time would be to offset things a bit. eg: > > CF 2011-03 (or whatever): > 2011-02-14: Patches should all be submitted > 2011-02-14: Reviewers start > 2011-03-01: Committers start w/ 'Ready for Committer' patches

Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04

2011-02-14 Thread Stephen Frost
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > But the > trickiest part of this whole process is that, on the one hand, it's > not fair for committers to ignore other people's patches, but on the > other hand, it's not fair to expect committers to sacrifice getting > their own projects done to get

Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04

2011-02-14 Thread Robert Haas
Sorry for the previous, content-free reply. On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: >> Here's where I think we are with this CommitFest. > >  Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04 > >

Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04

2011-02-14 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > I have to say that I've always been a bit suprised by the idea that the > CommitFest is intended to be done and all patches *committed* at the end > of the month.  It's been working really rather well, which is due in > great part to the exc

Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04

2011-02-14 Thread Dimitri Fontaine
Robert Haas writes: > We have committed 45 patches and returned with feedback or rejected > 23. There are 30 remaining patches, every single one of which has > been reviewed. 20 of those are marked Ready for Committer; 5 are > marked Waiting on Author; 5 are marked Needs Review. However, again,

Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04

2011-02-14 Thread Stephen Frost
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > Here's where I think we are with this CommitFest. Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CommitFest 2011-01 as of 2011-02-04 I'm gonna go out on a limb and hope you meant '2011-02-14' there. :) > So there are two basic difficulties wi