On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 12:06 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> and I'm beginning to think that we need to invoke that provision.
> Particularly with regard to hot standby, which by any sane reading was
> not close to being committable on 1 November (a fortiori from the fact
> that it's *still* not committable despite large amounts of later work).
maybe what we need is to put a policy for large patches... something
like: if you submit a large patch that introduce fairly complex new
features very late in the release cycle (maybe at the last commit fest
or previous to that one) then there are no promises about committers
to review them... maybe that will enforce authors to send patches more
often and more early...
and of course, the rest of us that make some kind of review (call it:
testing or code review) should start making those reviews on large
patches (just like someone suggests)
Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL
Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas
Guayaquil - Ecuador
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Emmanuel Cecchet||Date: 2009-01-25 20:11:15|
|Subject: Re: Table Partitioning Feature|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-01-25 18:36:35|
|Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules Bernd Helmle |