Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com, greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers
Date: 2011-04-18 05:43:50
Message-ID: 2712.1303105430@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 04/17/2011 07:41 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> That puts the overall patch acceptance rate at perhaps 75%.

>> That someone overstates the acceptance rate, because it ignores the
>> patches that people post and immediately get flamed to a well-done
>> crisp before adding them to the CF app, but there are not very many of
>> those any more.

> I don't believe there were ever terribly many of them.

Well, that number also ignores patches that were *committed* without
ever making it to the CF list. There aren't terribly many of those
either I think, but it does happen, particularly for small patches.
If you want to argue about the acceptance rate for out-of-CF-process
patches you'd have to do some serious digging in the archives to say
anything about what it is.

But anyway this is quibbling. The point I was trying to make is that
our patch acceptance rate is fairly far north of 50%, not south of it.
So we might hold people's feet to the fire a bit in the process, but
it's hardly impossible to get a patch committed.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Radosław Smogura 2011-04-18 05:47:36 Re: MMAP Buffers
Previous Message Jesper Krogh 2011-04-18 05:25:47 Re: Evaluation of secondary sort key.