| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Vik Fearing <vik(dot)fearing(at)dalibo(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE FOREIGN TABLE ( ... LIKE ... ) |
| Date: | 2014-02-17 14:29:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20140217142947.GC18388@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-02-17 23:07:45 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > I don't think this really has gone above Needs Review yet.
> I am not sure that this remark makes the review of this patch much
> progressing :(
Uh. What should I then say if a patch is marked as ready for committer
by the author, after it previously had been marked such when it clearly
wasn't? Your review just seems to confirm that it wasn't ready?
If the patch is isn't marked "needs review" in the CF it's less likely
to get timely review. And when a committer looks at the patch it'll just
be determined at not being ready again, making it less likely to get
committed.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-02-17 14:48:03 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-02-17 14:19:00 | Re: Review: tests for client programs |