| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
| Date: | 2018-03-03 01:34:06 |
| Message-ID: | 1c28e2ba-a381-156a-2bde-ac7de7bc4ae2@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/03/2018 02:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-03-03 02:00:46 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> That is somewhat misleading, I think. You're right the last version
>> was submitted on 2018-01-19, but the next review arrived on
>> 2018-01-31, i.e. right at the end of the CF. So it's not like the
>> patch was sitting there with unresolved issues. Based on that
>> review the patch was marked as RWF and thus not moved to 2018-03
>> automatically.
>
> I don't see how this changes anything.
>
You've used "The patch hasn't moved forward since 2018-01-19," as an
argument why the patch is not eligible for 2018-03. I suggest that
argument is misleading, because patches generally do not move without
reviews, and it's difficult to respond to a review that arrives on the
last day of a commitfest.
Consider that without the review, the patch would end up with NR status,
and would be moved to the next CF automatically. Isn't that a bit weird?
kind regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-03-03 01:36:10 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-03-03 01:19:06 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add much-more-extensive TAP tests for pgbench. |