closing CommitFest 2016-03, feature freeze now in effect

On 04/08/2016 05:05 PM, Robert Haas wrote:

CommitFest 2016-03 is now closed. I have moved "Twophase transactions
on slave", "Partial sort", and "amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking
tool)" to the next CommitFest in accordance with the policy previous
set by the release management team. I have left "Replace buffer
manager spinlock with atomic operations" active in the current
CommitFest because it was granted an extension. The RMT has received
Tom's request for an extension on the "Unique Joins" patch but has not
yet reached a decision.

Feature freeze is now in effect. Please, no more feature commits.
Let's turn our attention to the task of working through the open items
list.

I think this is going to be a great release. Hopefully, we (by which
I mean, in no small part, I) have not committed too many bugs along
with all of the great features.

Thanks,

Can I just say, "Woot!, well done all!"

Sincerely,

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On 09 Apr 2016, at 03:05, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

CommitFest 2016-03 is now closed. I have moved "Twophase transactions
on slave", "Partial sort", and "amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking
tool)" to the next CommitFest in accordance with the policy previous
set by the release management team. I have left "Replace buffer
manager spinlock with atomic operations" active in the current
CommitFest because it was granted an extension. The RMT has received
Tom's request for an extension on the "Unique Joins" patch but has not
yet reached a decision.

Aren’t "Twophase transactions on slave” falling into category of patches that fixes
previously introduces behaviour? |'m not trying to argue with RMT decision, but just
want to ensure that it was thoughtful decision, taking into account that absence of that
patch in release can cause problems with replication in some cases as it was warned
by Jesper[1]/messages/by-id/5707A8CC.6080206@redhat.com and Andres[2]/messages/by-id/80856693-5065-4392-8606-CF572A2FF1FB@anarazel.de.

[1]: /messages/by-id/5707A8CC.6080206@redhat.com

[2]: /messages/by-id/80856693-5065-4392-8606-CF572A2FF1FB@anarazel.de

Stas Kelvich
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Stas Kelvich <s.kelvich@postgrespro.ru> wrote:

Aren’t "Twophase transactions on slave” falling into category of patches that fixes
previously introduces behaviour? |'m not trying to argue with RMT decision, but just
want to ensure that it was thoughtful decision, taking into account that absence of that
patch in release can cause problems with replication in some cases as it was warned
by Jesper[1] and Andres[2].

The RMT hasn't made a specific decision on this patch. I merely moved
it in accordance with the general RMT decision about feature freeze:

/messages/by-id/CA+TgmoY56w5FOzeEo+i48qehL+BsVTwy-Q1M0xjUhUCwgGW7-Q@mail.gmail.com

My personal view is as follows:

If the patch sped up things on the master but not on the slave, that
doesn't justify a post-freeze change to speed up the slave. That can
be done for 9.7. On the other hand, if the patch broke things that
are supposed to work, then that must be fixed.

--
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

On 9 April 2016 at 11:57, Stas Kelvich <s.kelvich@postgrespro.ru> wrote:

On 09 Apr 2016, at 03:05, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

CommitFest 2016-03 is now closed. I have moved "Twophase transactions
on slave", "Partial sort", and "amcheck (B-Tree integrity checking
tool)" to the next CommitFest in accordance with the policy previous
set by the release management team. I have left "Replace buffer
manager spinlock with atomic operations" active in the current
CommitFest because it was granted an extension. The RMT has received
Tom's request for an extension on the "Unique Joins" patch but has not
yet reached a decision.

Aren’t "Twophase transactions on slave” falling into category of patches
that fixes
previously introduces behaviour? |'m not trying to argue with RMT
decision, but just
want to ensure that it was thoughtful decision, taking into account that
absence of that
patch in release can cause problems with replication in some cases as it
was warned
by Jesper[1] and Andres[2].

[1] /messages/by-id/5707A8CC.6080206@redhat.com

[2]
/messages/by-id/80856693-5065-4392-8606-CF572A2FF1FB@anarazel.de

It's a longstanding problem and it would be good if we had an improvement.

I can't commit a patch that has a reported bug against it, nor can we fix
the problem if we can't reproduce it.

If we do get a committable patch, that is then the time to make a case to
RMT, but not before.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/&gt;
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services