8.5 development schedule

[Chris Browne]

gsstark@... (Greg Stark) writes:

> I would like to propose a different strategy. Instead of always
> tackling all the smaller patches and leaving the big patches for last,
> I would suggest we start with Hot Standby.
>
> In fact I would suggest as Hot Standby has already gotten a first pass
> review that we consider applying it on day 1. That gets it into
> everyone's development trees so they can see any suspicious code or
> effects it has in their peculiar environments. It may not be perfect
> but if we apply it now there's plenty of time to make improvements.
>
> Then we can have a regular commitfest a month or so later. Hopefully
> any followon changes to Hot Standby would actually get into that
> commitfest if they're relatively minor.

I could see going either way on this, either:

a) Doing an as-early-as-possible CommitFest to knock off easy items
that have been waiting a while, and having the *second* Fest be the
one where we expect all the large, controversial items to get added
(e.g. - stuff like hot standby, SEPostgreSQL), or

b) Focusing on the likely-hard ones (hot standby, SE PostgreSQL)
first, and deferring others to Fest #2.
--
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'acm.org';
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linuxdistributions.html
"Everything should be built top-down, except the first time."
-- Alan J. Perlis

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

[Heikki Linnakangas-3]

Robert Haas wrote:
> What I've seen of Heikki's work thus far has led me to believe that
> his reasons for rejecting the patch were good ones, but I don't
> specifically what they were.  It would be helpful, I think, to
> reiterate them or repost links to the relevant messages in the
> archives; it would also be great if we could get an estimate of how
> close the patch is to being committable.  Does it still need massive
> work, or is it getting fairly close, or what?  Are the issues code
> cleanliness/maintainability, bugs, missing functionality?

This is where we left off:

http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/49A64D16.8010105@...

I was in the process of simplifying Simon's last patch, by removing the
concept of "recovery procs", and simplifying the association between
subxids and top xids is communicated to the slave. The above link
contains an experimental patch for that. The simplifications probably
left behind some more crud that can now be removed, or things that were
broken.

--
  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

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

[Tom Lane-2]

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@...> writes:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> What I've seen of Heikki's work thus far has led me to believe that
>> his reasons for rejecting the patch were good ones, but I don't
>> specifically what they were.  It would be helpful, I think, to
>> reiterate them or repost links to the relevant messages in the
>> archives; it would also be great if we could get an estimate of how
>> close the patch is to being committable.  Does it still need massive
>> work, or is it getting fairly close, or what?  Are the issues code
>> cleanliness/maintainability, bugs, missing functionality?

> This is where we left off:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/49A64D16.8010105@...

There were adjacent remarks suggesting that large other parts of the
patch remained to be reviewed, as well.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-02/msg01268.php

                        regards, tom lane

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

[Robert Haas]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@...> wrote:

> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@...> writes:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>> What I've seen of Heikki's work thus far has led me to believe that
>>> his reasons for rejecting the patch were good ones, but I don't
>>> specifically what they were.  It would be helpful, I think, to
>>> reiterate them or repost links to the relevant messages in the
>>> archives; it would also be great if we could get an estimate of how
>>> close the patch is to being committable.  Does it still need massive
>>> work, or is it getting fairly close, or what?  Are the issues code
>>> cleanliness/maintainability, bugs, missing functionality?
>
>> This is where we left off:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/49A64D16.8010105@...
>
> There were adjacent remarks suggesting that large other parts of the
> patch remained to be reviewed, as well.
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-02/msg01268.php

Thanks to both of you, this is very helpful.  Two other questions:

1. Are there any chunks of this functionality in this patch that seem
like they might be able to be severed and committed separately?

2. Was the latest version of this patch posted to the mailing list,
and if so can you provide a link?

Thanks,

...Robert

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

[Heikki Linnakangas-3]

Robert Haas wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@...> wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@...> writes:
>>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> What I've seen of Heikki's work thus far has led me to believe that
>>>> his reasons for rejecting the patch were good ones, but I don't
>>>> specifically what they were.  It would be helpful, I think, to
>>>> reiterate them or repost links to the relevant messages in the
>>>> archives; it would also be great if we could get an estimate of how
>>>> close the patch is to being committable.  Does it still need massive
>>>> work, or is it getting fairly close, or what?  Are the issues code
>>>> cleanliness/maintainability, bugs, missing functionality?
>>> This is where we left off:
>>> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/49A64D16.8010105@...
>> There were adjacent remarks suggesting that large other parts of the
>> patch remained to be reviewed, as well.
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-02/msg01268.php
>
> Thanks to both of you, this is very helpful.  Two other questions:
>
> 1. Are there any chunks of this functionality in this patch that seem
> like they might be able to be severed and committed separately?

I don't think so.

> 2. Was the latest version of this patch posted to the mailing list,
> and if so can you provide a link?

Yes:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/49A64D73.6090302@...

--
  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

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

[Robert Haas]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Peter Eisentraut<peter_e@...> wrote:

> Now that 8.4.0 is out the door, development for 8.5devel will be opened any
> day now.  But we haven't discussed the development timeline so far.  The core
> team has several proposals:
>
> CommitFest      Alpha
> Aug. 1          Sept. 1
> Oct. 1          Nov. 1
> Dec. 1          Jan ~~ 5
> Feb. 1          March 4
>
> Release ~ May 2010
>
> This puts us on track for a release at the same time next year, maybe a little
> earlier.
>
> ("Alpha" is a semiformal snapshot release at the end of the commitfest, for
> those who haven't heard yet.  Details later.)
>
> If we want to avoid a commitfest in December, then this:
>
> CommitFest      Alpha
> Sept. 1         Oct. 1
> Nov. 1          Dec. 1
> Jan. 1          Feb 1
> March 1         April 2
>
> Release ~ June 2010
>
> But this has the drawback of waiting an extra month for the first commit fest,
> for no particularly good reason.  (Check the current list, if you are
> curious.)
>
> Or, one more commitfest:
>
> CommitFest      Alpha
> Aug. 1          Sept. 1
> Oct. 1          Nov. 1
> Dec. 1          Jan ~~ 5
> Feb. 1          March 3
> April 3         May 3
>
> Release ~ July 2010
>
> But that gets 8.5 out even later than this year, and past PGCon.
>
> Comments?

Now that the first CommitFest is over and done with, it's probably
time to revive this discussion.  If we want people to get big patches
in prior to the last CommitFest, we'd better give the ample warning of
when the penultimate CommitFest is likely to start.

Since we started the first CommitFest on July 15th, and assuming we
want to stick with the timing of one CommitFest every 2 months, a
four-CommitFest cycle would look like this: July 15th, September 15th,
November 15th, January 15th.  A five-CommitFest cycle would add an
additional CommitFest starting March 15th, but I think the last time
we had this discussion, most people were in favor of trying to get 8.5
out the door before PGCon.

I want to point out that if we want to have 8.4 be released at the
same time that 8.5 was, or maybe even a bit earlier in the year so
that it actually is before PGCon, then the right number of CommitFests
is THREE.  Last time, we started the last CommitFest on November 1st.
With a three-CommitFest release, our final CommitFest will begin two
weeks later than it did last year; with a four-CommitFest release, it
will begin a month and a half later.  Even if we assume we'll do a
better job with release management this time, it doesn't seem very
realistic to think that we're going to start the final CommitFest a
month and a half later and get the release out a month sooner.

...Robert

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

[Peter Eisentraut-2]

On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 08:04 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Now that the first CommitFest is over and done with,

I think you forgot the part where you tell everyone that it is in fact
done.  I'm waiting on you before I get the alpha release rolling.


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

[Robert Haas]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Peter Eisentraut<peter_e@...> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 08:04 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Now that the first CommitFest is over and done with,
>
> I think you forgot the part where you tell everyone that it is in fact
> done.  I'm waiting on you before I get the alpha release rolling.

Hmm, it's sort of out of my hands at this point.  There are three
patches left, all of which have been claimed by committers, one of
whom is you.  I don't have any magical powers to control the timing of
committer activity.

But if you're waiting (sorry, didn't realize that), then I think what
we should do is just move those three patches to the next CommitFest.
Then this one will really be done.  I'll go do that now.

...Robert

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

[Peter Eisentraut-2]

On mån, 2009-08-17 at 10:22 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Peter Eisentraut<peter_e@...> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 08:04 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> Now that the first CommitFest is over and done with,
> >
> > I think you forgot the part where you tell everyone that it is in fact
> > done.  I'm waiting on you before I get the alpha release rolling.
>
> Hmm, it's sort of out of my hands at this point.  There are three
> patches left, all of which have been claimed by committers, one of
> whom is you.  I don't have any magical powers to control the timing of
> committer activity.

Well, in the past the commit fest manager has usually written an email,
"The commit fest is now closed".  Which, as you write, doesn't really
strictly mean anything, just as much as the commit first itself doesn't
really need to mean anything, but appeared to give everyone a sense of
direction and a fuzzy feeling.


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

[Kevin Grittner]

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@...> wrote:
 
> Well, in the past the commit fest manager has usually written an
> email, "The commit fest is now closed".
 
With the new commitfest software, as the last patch is moved out of
"pending" and the commitfest moved to "closed" status -- I can
practically hear the bang of the gavel.  :-)
 
-Kevin

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