Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: ProcessUtility_hook

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ProcessUtility_hook
Date: 2009-12-01 01:55:38
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Uh, we weren't even done reviewing this were we?
> > Uh, I am new to this commitfest wiki thing, but it did have a review by
> > Euler Taveira de Oliveira:
> >
> > and the author replied.  Is there more that needs to be done?
> It wasn't marked Ready For Committer, so presumably the reviewer
> wasn't done with it.  I know I hadn't looked at it at all, because
> I was waiting for the commitfest review process to finish.

So, if someone writes a patch, and it is reviewed, and the patch author
updates the patch and replies, it still should be reviewed again before
being committed?  I was unclear on that.  The updated patch only
appeared today, so maybe it was ready, but the commit fest manager has
to indicate that in the status before I review/apply it?   Should I
revert the patch?

So there is nothing for me to do to help?  The only two patches I see as
ready for committer are HS and SR;  not going to touch those.  ;-)

Also, we are two weeks into the commit fest and we have more unapplied
patches than applied ones.

  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-12-01 02:06:25
Subject: Re: ProcessUtility_hook
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-12-01 01:38:18
Subject: Re: ProcessUtility_hook

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group