Re: CF bug fix items

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CF bug fix items
Date: 2018-06-11 15:51:05
Message-ID: 20180611155105.jymkakqvwygna5db@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018-Jun-11, Etsuro Fujita wrote:

> (2018/06/11 20:34), Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > On 06/11/2018 07:08 AM, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > > > In one of those cases, "ConvertRowtypeExpr reference errors from
> > > > partition-wise join", the patch has been marked Ready for Committer and
> > > > then Etsuro seems to have changeed his mind. If it's not ready it should
> > > > be set back to "needs review" or "waiting for author".
> > >
> > > Yeah, I don't think the proposed patch is the right way to go, so I'm
> > > proposing another solution for that, which I think makes code much
> > > simple, but I'd like to hear the opinion from Robert, who is the owner
> > > of PWJ. (I marked this as Ready for Committer partly because I wanted
> > > to hear the opinion.)
> >
> > I don't think that's the way we should use "Ready for Committer". I
> > suggest you ,move it back to "Needs Review".
>
> Done.

Actually, for something that's an open item, there needn't be an entry
in the commitfest at all, ISTM. Open items are must-fix for release
(unlike older bugs), unless as a community we decide that something is
not a bug or that it can go unfixed. So the commitfest entry is
unnecessary.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2018-06-11 15:55:02 Re: Spilling hashed SetOps and aggregates to disk
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2018-06-11 15:38:09 Re: Spilling hashed SetOps and aggregates to disk