| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Recovery Test Framework |
| Date: | 2009-01-13 01:46:43 |
| Message-ID: | 15669.1231811203@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> As for the process used, I think it is useful to understand how
>> committers choose what to work on next. ...
> It's not just "unfair". It's counter-productive. It means you're ignoring the
> very patches whose authors are mostly likely to be responsive to requests to
> change them. And who would be most likely to be fertile ground for further
> improvements.
I don't think you can honestly argue that the replication-related
patches are getting ignored. AFAICT there's quite a lot of review
effort going on around them. KaiGai-san probably has a legitimate
beef about lack of review on his patch, but the replication patches
do not.
It's true that stuff isn't going to get *committed* until it seems
reasonably stable, but I hope you weren't arguing for that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-01-13 01:50:37 | Re: solaris libpq threaded build fails |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-01-13 01:42:24 | Re: Recovery Test Framework |