From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: We're getting close to the end of 2020-01 CF |
Date: | 2020-01-22 05:09:39 |
Message-ID: | 20200122050939.GE174860@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 05:20:17PM +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Yeah, you're right returning them with feedback seems more appropriate,
> given the long inactivity. Plus, the CF app apparently does not allow
> moving WoA patches to the next CF anyway.
FWIW, I tend to take a base of two weeks as a sensible period of
time as that's half the CF period when I do the classification job.
> Those are the patches that have been set as WoA before this CF, and have
> not been updated since. It's quite possible the state is stale for some
> of those patches, although I've tried to check if there were any
> messages on the list.
You need to be careful about bug fixes, as these are things that we
don't want to lose track of. Another thing that I noticed in the past
is that some patches are registered as bug fixes, but they actually
implement a new feature. So there can be tricky cases.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2020-01-22 05:10:40 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-01-22 05:03:41 | Re: Protect syscache from bloating with negative cache entries |