| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, daveg <daveg(at)sonic(dot)net>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Free WAL caches on switching segments |
| Date: | 2006-02-14 15:10:35 |
| Message-ID: | 1139929835.1258.944.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 12:54 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 23:33 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > > Yes, your vote counts very much. What if I apply the patch, but mark
> > > the posix_advise() call in a NOT_USED macro block, so it will be ready
> > > for people to test, but will not be used until we are sure.
> >
> > Sounds like a recipe for ensuring it never will be tested. What's
> > needed here is some actual tests, not preparation...
>
> Without discussing this particular patch, IMHO we need a clear checklist
> of items that are required before a patch is accepted onto the patches
> awaiting application list.
This was supposed to be a serious suggestion, so apologies if this came
across stronger than it was meant.
The onus is of course upon the patch submitter to improve their game,
but there seems only benefit in setting out the (simpler) rules of the
game to show people what is unacceptable, even before they submit.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-14 15:47:30 | Re: Free WAL caches on switching segments |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-14 14:47:43 | Re: Free WAL caches on switching segments |