From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API |
Date: | 2014-07-17 18:11:54 |
Message-ID: | 20140717181154.GD21370@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-07-16 10:43:08 +0900, Shigeru Hanada wrote:
> Kaigai-san,
>
> 2014-07-15 21:37 GMT+09:00 Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>:
> > Sorry, expected result of sanity-check test was not updated on
> > renaming to pg_custom_plan_provider.
> > The attached patch fixed up this point.
>
> I confirmed that all regression tests passed, so I marked the patch as
> "Ready for committer".
I personally don't see how this patch is 'ready for committer'. I
realize that that state is sometimes used to denote that review needs to
be "escalated", but it still seemspremature.
Unless I miss something there hasn't been any API level review of this?
Also, aren't there several open items?
Perhaps there needs to be a stage between 'needs review' and 'ready for
committer'?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2014-07-17 18:54:26 | Re: Doing better at HINTing an appropriate column within errorMissingColumn() |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-07-17 16:27:51 | Re: Re: 9.3: more problems with "Could not open file "pg_multixact/members/xxxx" |