| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Trivial patch to double vacuum speed |
| Date: | 2006-09-04 23:52:38 |
| Message-ID: | 200609042352.k84Nqc528108@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > I don't have a concrete proposal to make, but I do think that the
> > current patch-queue process is not suited to the project as it stands
> > today. Maybe if this issue-tracking stuff gets off the ground, we
> > could let developers place ACK or NAK flags on patches they've looked
> > at, and have some rule about ACK-vs-NAK requirements for something to go
> > in.
>
> How about *requiring* test cases that prove the patch?
That doesn't hit most of the failures, which can be portability,
performance, or missing features, or bad style.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-04 23:57:22 | Re: [PATCHES] Trivial patch to double vacuum speed |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-09-04 23:52:10 | Re: [PATCHES] Trivial patch to double vacuum speed |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-04 23:57:22 | Re: [PATCHES] Trivial patch to double vacuum speed |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-09-04 23:52:10 | Re: [PATCHES] Trivial patch to double vacuum speed |