Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Parallel query execution

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>,Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>,Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>,pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel query execution
Date: 2013-01-16 13:42:29
Message-ID: 20130116134228.GI16126@tamriel.snowman.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
* Daniel Farina (daniel(at)heroku(dot)com) wrote:
> I have been skimming the commitfest application, and unlike some of
> the previous commitfests a huge number of patches have had review at
> some point in time, but probably need more...so looking for the red
> "Nobody" in the 'reviewers' column probably understates the shortage
> of review.

I've been frustrated by that myself.  I realize we don't want to
duplicate work but I'm really starting to think that having the
Reviewers column has turned out to actually work against us.

> I'm curious what the qualitative feelings are on patches or clusters
> thereof and what kind of review would be helpful in clearing the
> field.

I haven't been thrilled with the patches that I've looked at but they've
also been ones that hadn't been reviewed before, so perhaps that's what
should be expected.  It'd be neat if we had some idea of what committers
were actively working on and keep off of *those*, but keep working on
the ones which aren't being worked by a committer currently.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Boszormenyi ZoltanDate: 2013-01-16 13:43:18
Subject: Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)
Previous:From: Stephen FrostDate: 2013-01-16 13:38:08
Subject: Re: Parallel query execution

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group