Re: GSoC - code of implementation of materialized views

From: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Pavel Baros <baros(dot)p(at)seznam(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GSoC - code of implementation of materialized views
Date: 2010-06-27 19:40:44
Message-ID: 20100627194044.GZ1474@fetter.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 12:52:17PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 20:24 +0200, Pavel Baros wrote:
>
> > ... also you can look at enclosed patch.
>
> No tests == no patch

This isn't quite how I'd have phrased it, and it would be nice if
nobody phrased advice quite this way. :)

In order for a patch to be accepted, it needs to include both SGML
docs if it changes user-visible behavior, and tests for any new
behaviors it has created. This is the project standard, and it or
something very like it is a good standard for just about any project,
as it gives people some ways to test intent vs. effect.

Do you want some help with creating same?

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-06-27 21:55:50 Re: [PATCH] Re: Adding XMLEXISTS to the grammar
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-06-27 18:33:41 Re: pg_dump's checkSeek() seems inadequate