Re: patches that could use additional reviewers

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> Of the fourteen I signed up for, 10 are now marked Committed or
> Returned with Feedback. Of the remaining four, there are two that
> could use more eyes:
>
> MULTISET functions

I'll work on this one.

> Change pg_last_xlog_receive_location not to move backwards

I'll take a look at this one too, but I'm not that familiar with the
xlog code, etc, so I'm not sure if I'll be able to comment on
correctness...

> A few other ones that could use more reviewers include:
>
> range types
> key locks

If I can get through the others, I'll try and come back and look at
these.

> widen scale factor limit from pgbench

I was already starting to look at this one, actually. :)

> And your patch could probably use another reviewer too, if anyone else
> is looking for stuff to help with:
>
> log_csv_fields ; add current_role log option

Not sure if it counts if I review it. ;)

> And there are a few patches with no reviewer at all.
>
> PL/Python invalidate composite argument functions
> PL/Python tracebacks

I thought from the other threads that we had someone working the
PL/Pyton patches..? :/

> contrib/btree_gist (submitted very late)

Looks like this one might just be committable w/o additional review, but
if it's still hanging around, I might be able to help.

> SQL/MED - file_fdw

Ditto on this.

Alright, I've marked myself as a reviewer for the ones I'll look at in
the next couple days. The others are up for grabs for others, any
takers on additional reviewers for them?

Thanks,

Stephen