Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)
Date: 2013-01-21 19:04:14
Message-ID: 8676.1358795054@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
>> IMHO that's the single most important task of a review.

> Really? I'd say the most important task for a review is "does the patch
> do what it says it does?". That is, if the patch is supposed to
> implement feature X, does it actually? If it's a performance patch,
> does performance actually improve?

> If the patch doesn't implement what it's supposed to, who cares what the
> code looks like?

But even before that, you have to ask whether what it's supposed to do
is something we want.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2013-01-21 19:09:57 Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2013-01-21 18:54:33 Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)