| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Commitfest Bug (was: Re: Reusing abbreviated keys during second pass of ordered [set] aggregates) |
| Date: | 2016-03-01 19:16:15 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQKa2Hb-+f1dGj2WLnTbJjVDs0o8HOMQy9BbxCYFTYfWQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> +1 for not moving such patches to the new CF until the author does
> something --- at which point they'd change to "Needs Review" state.
> But we should not change them into that state without author input.
> And I don't see the value of having them in a new CF until the
> author does something.
To be clear: My position was always that it's good that the author has
to do *something* to get their patch into the next CF. It's bad that
this change in state can easily be missed, though. I've now been on
both sides of this, as a patch author and patch reviewer. If the patch
was left as "Waiting on Author", as my review of Alexander's patch
was, then it ought to not change to "Needs Review" silently. That
makes absolutely no sense.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-03-01 19:17:26 | Re: PROPOSAL: Fast temporary tables |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-03-01 19:11:07 | Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding |