Re: [Commitfest 2022-07] Patch Triage: Needs Review, Part 1
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [Commitfest 2022-07] Patch Triage: Needs Review, Part 1 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3558828.1659045056@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [Commitfest 2022-07] Patch Triage: Needs Review, Part 1 (Jacob Champion <jchampion@timescale.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [Commitfest 2022-07] Patch Triage: Needs Review, Part 1
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Jacob Champion <jchampion@timescale.com> writes: > Next up is the large list of Needs Review. This part 1 should include > entries as old or older than seven commitfests running. I'm just commenting on a couple that I've been involved with. > = Stalled Patches, Recommend Return = > - Fix up partitionwise join on how equi-join conditions between the > partition keys are identified > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/2266/ > It looks like this one was Returned with Feedback but did not actually > have feedback, which may have caused confusion. (Solid motivation for a > new close status.) I don't think there's been any review since 2020. Yeah, there was an earlier discussion of this same patch in some previous CF-closing thread, IIRC, but I can't find that right now. I think it basically is stuck behind the outer-join-variables work I'm pursuing at https://commitfest.postgresql.org/39/3755/ ... and when/if that lands, the present patch probably won't be anywhere near what we want anyway. +1 for RWF. > = Stalled Patches, Need Help = > - Fix behavior of geo_ops when NaN is involved > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/2710/ > Stuck in a half-committed state, which is tricky. Could maybe use a > reframing or recap (or a new thread?). We fixed a couple of easy cases but then realized that the hard cases are hard. I don't have much faith that the current patch is going to lead to anything committable, and it doesn't look like anyone has the appetite to put in a lot of work on the topic. I'd vote for RWF. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: