Re: commit fests (was Re: primary key error message)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: commit fests (was Re: primary key error message)
Date: 2010-01-22 00:11:10
Message-ID: 16986.1264119070@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> If you want an example of something I *do* have a process problem
>> with, it's Kevin Grittner's attempts

> Hmmm.... Plural? I've made exactly one post on the subject since
> the CF started, unless you count review of Markus's dtester code,
> which he posted before the CF but didn't add to the CF page. Is
> reviewing that a process violation? Or was discussing it before the
> CF the process issue?

I thought the whole topic should have been held off till after the CF,
probably till after the bulk of beta testing work is done. It's a
sufficiently large and difficult problem that nobody can really give you
any meaningful feedback without taking more time away from our current
set of problems than I think is appropriate.

Now your original posts back in December were okay, since you were just
letting people know that you intended to work on this over a long
period. But IIRC you've made more than one post with actual code in it
that you seemed to be hoping people would review, and that I thought
was a distraction at this late stage of the cycle.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-01-22 00:12:05 Re: commit fests (was Re: primary key error message)
Previous Message Larry Rosenman 2010-01-22 00:09:30 Re: 8.5 vs. 9.0