On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Yeah, so far it's also just my opinion in the other direction :)
> Hopefully, some others will have thoughts about it too.
Just giving my 2c here...
Instead of posting multiple 5~7 patches at the same time, why not limiting
the number of patches published at the same time to a lower number (max
2~3)? The logical replication implementation can be surely broken down into
many more pieces that could be reviewed carefully one by one, and in a way
that would make the implementation steps clearer than it is now for all the
people of this ML.
OK this would make the review process longer but the good point is that
some hackers who are only specialized in some areas of the PG code would be
able to give precious feedback.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Amit Kapila||Date: 2013-01-09 13:45:52|
|Subject: Re: Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2013-01-09 13:17:52|
|Subject: askpass program for libpq|