| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Commitfest Update |
| Date: | 2022-03-30 18:43:58 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobrKCuphMN9vqTU66vpKeLQs5QTVRSGHLSKOAoj__j6Tg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 2:42 PM Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> Patches that are Waiting on Author and haven't had activity in months
> -- traditionally they were set to Returned with Feedback. It seems the
> feeling these days is to not lose state on them and just move them to
> the next CF. I'm not sure that's wise, it ends up just filling up the
> list with patches nobody's working on.
Yes, we should mark those Returned with Feedback or some other status
that causes them not to get carried forward. The CF is full of stuff
that isn't likely to get committed any time in the foreseeable future,
and that's really unhelpful.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2022-03-30 18:54:23 | Re: Avoiding smgrimmedsync() during nbtree index builds |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-03-30 18:43:03 | Re: range_agg with multirange inputs |