Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3696.120.41.1.4\))
Subject: Re: CF entries for 17 to be reviewed
From: "Andrey M. Borodin" <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>
In-Reply-To: <48167BD3-7145-4CFC-B2D8-CEE18FAE9738@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 16:49:48 +0300
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2AFAACF9-27F2-4433-B62D-DC825DD7BA11@yandex-team.ru>
References: <E0D2F0CE-D27C-49B1-902B-AD8D2427F07E@yandex-team.ru>
 <CAAKRu_YK1FOm_UPSdwj+4oD-Tsvjc0KJv0ghfbotxeOOeN1Q7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <C8D65462-0888-4484-A72C-C99A94381ECD@yandex-team.ru>
 <48167BD3-7145-4CFC-B2D8-CEE18FAE9738@yandex-team.ru>
To: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2AFAACF9-27F2-4433-B62D-DC825DD7BA11%40yandex-team.ru>
Precedence: bulk


> On 4 Mar 2024, at 14:51, Andrey M. Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru> =
wrote:
>=20
> I=E2=80=99ve read other small sections.

Here are statuses for "Refactoring" section:
* New [relation] options engine
	Relatively heavy refactoring. Author keeps interest to the patch =
for some years now. As I understood the main problem is that big =
refactoring cannot be split into incremental steps. Definitely worth =
reviewing, but I think not for 17 already...
* Confine vacuum skip logic to lazy_scan_skip
	There was a discussion at the end of 2023, but no recent review =
activity. Author actively improves the patchset.
* Change prefetch and read strategies to use range in pg_prewarm
	Some discussion is happening. Changed to WoA to reflect actual =
status.
* Potential issue in ecpg-informix decimal converting functions
	On Daniel's TODO list.
* BitmapHeapScan table AM violation removal (and use streaming read API)
	Active discussion with reviewers is going on.
* Streaming read sequential and TID range scan
	Seems like discussion on this patch is going on in nearby =
threads. In this thread I observe only improved patch versions posted.

All in all "Refactoring" section seemed to me more complex and demanding =
in-depth knowledge. It's difficult to judge why new approaches are an =
improvement. So for newcomer reviewers I'd recommend to look to other =
sections.

Thanks.


Best regards, Andrey Borodin.=