"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> My feeling is we should have more regular sync points where the patch
>> queue is emptied and everything committed or rejected.
> No doubt, but the real problem here is that reviewing/committing other
> people's patches is not fun, it's just work :-(. So it's no surprise
> that it tends to get put off. Not sure what to do about that.
Obviously a big part of that is that we just don't have enough committers. I'm
hopeful that in time that situation will improve but in the meantime we do
have a problem and the burden falls unfairly on a few.
Is there anything others can do to help? If non-committers like Simon or I
reviewed patches would it be easier for you to give a quick agreement to the
comments or "that's not an issue" comment?
It seems like we do have a few committers who should be able to review code
quality but are uncertain about making major design decisions. If, for
example, Bruce or Jan reviewed patches more invasive than they usually do for
code quality and checked with you on design questions would that be helpful?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Florian G. Pflug||Date: 2007-03-29 11:44:58|
|Subject: Re: CREATE INDEX and HOT - revised design|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2007-03-29 11:32:25|
|Subject: Re: Modifying TOAST thresholds|