Re: Assorted small doc patches

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Assorted small doc patches
Date: 2022-05-31 20:12:23
Message-ID: CAKFQuwbLX+LPyKbBq9xkQ0W_tktn6Rm7976BKRRM0cUNQz9=iQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Anything I should be doing differently here to get a bit of
reviewer/committer time on these? I'll add them to the commitfest for next
month if needed but I'm seeing quick patches going in every week and the
batch format done at the beginning of the month got processed through
without issue.

Per: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Submitting_a_Patch
I was hoping for Workflow A especially as I acquit myself more than
adequately on the "How do you get someone to respond to you?" items.

I was going to chalk it up to bad timing but the volume of doc patches this
month hasn't really dipped even with the couple of bad bugs being worked on.

Thank you!

David J.

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 6:52 AM David G. Johnston <
david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Updated status of the set.
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 5:59 PM David G. Johnston <
> david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>
>> v0001-database-default-name (-bugs, with a related cleanup suggestion as
>> well)
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAKFQuwZvHH1HVSOu7EYjvshynk4pnDwC5RwkF%3DVfZJvmUskwrQ%40mail.gmail.com#0e6d799478d88aee93402bec35fa64a2
>>
>>
>> v0002-doc-extension-dependent-routine-behavior (-general, reply to user
>> confusion)
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKFQuwb_QtY25feLeh%3D8uNdnyo1H%3DcN4R3vENsUwQzJP4-0xZg%40mail.gmail.com
>>
>>
>> v0001-doc-savepoint-name-reuse (-docs, reply to user request for
>> improvement)
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKFQuwYzSb9OW5qTFgc0v9RWMN8bX83wpe8okQ7x6vtcmfA2KQ%40mail.gmail.com
>>
>
> Pending discussion of alternate presentation of transaction sequence; if
> not favorable, I can just go with a simple factual fix of the mistake in
> v0001 (see this thread).
>
>
>>
>> v0001-on-conflict-excluded-is-name-not-table (-docs, figured out while
>> trying to improve the docs to reduce user confusion in this area)
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAKFQuwYN20c0%2B7kKvm3PBgibu77BzxDvk9RvoXBb1%3Dj1mDODPw%40mail.gmail.com#ea79c88b55fdccecbd2c4fe549f321c9
>>
>>
>> v0001-doc-make-row-estimation-example-match-prose (-docs, reply to user
>> pointing of an inconsistency)
>>
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKFQuwax7V5R_rw%3DEOWmy%3DTBON6v3sveBx_WvwsENskCL5CLQQ%40mail.gmail.com
>>
>
> David J.
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dmitry Koval 2022-05-31 20:22:32 Re: Add SPLIT PARTITION/MERGE PARTITIONS commands
Previous Message Tom Lane 2022-05-31 20:10:05 Re: pg15b1: FailedAssertion("val > base", File: "...src/include/utils/relptr.h", Line: 67, PID: 30485)