Re: Remove unused fields in ReorderBufferTupleBuf

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 4:17 PM Aleksander Alekseev
<aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Hi, this patch was marked in CF as "Needs Review" [1], but there has
> > been no activity on this thread for 5+ months.
> >
> > Do you wish to keep this open, or can you post something to elicit
> > more interest in reviews for the latest patch set? Otherwise, if
> > nothing happens then the CF entry will be closed ("Returned with
> > feedback") at the end of this CF.
>
> I don't think that closing CF entries only due to inactivity is a good
> practice, nor something we typically do. When someone will have spare
> time this person will (hopefully) review the code.

Agree. IMHO, a patch not picked up by anyone doesn't mean it's the
author's problem to mark it "Returned with feedback". And, the timing
to mark things this way is not quite right as we are getting close to
the PG17 release. The patch may be fixing a problem (like the one
that's closed due to inactivity
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/46/3503/) or may be a feature or an
improvement that no reviewer/committer has had a chance to look at.

I think a new label such as "Returned due to lack of interest" or
"Returned due to disinterest" (or some better wording) helps
reviewers/committers to pick things up. This new label can be
attributed to the class of patches for which initially there's some
positive feedback on the idea, the patch is being kept latest, but
finds no one to get it reviewed for say X number of months.

--
Bharath Rupireddy
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com