Re: segfault in HEAD when too many nested functions call

On 2017-07-27 22:04:59 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 09:49:18PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2017-07-27 21:46:57 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 02:29:32AM +0000, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 08:04:30AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On July 24, 2017 7:10:19 AM GMT+01:00, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > > >On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 01:04:10PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > > >> Ok, I'll flesh out the patch till Thursday. But I do think we're
> > > > > >going
> > > > > >> to have to do something about the back branches, too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update.
> > > > > >Kindly send
> > > > > >a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent
> > > > > >status
> > > > > >update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
> > > > > >https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
> > > > >
> > > > > I sent out a note fleshed out patch last week, which Tom reviewed. Planning to update it to address that review today or tomorrow.
> > > >
> > > > This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send
> > > > a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
> > > > update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
> > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
> > >
> > > IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED. This PostgreSQL 10 open item is long past due
> > > for your status update. Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on open
> > > item ownership[1] and then reply immediately. If I do not hear from you by
> > > 2017-07-29 05:00 UTC, I will transfer this item to release management team
> > > ownership without further notice.
> > >
> > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
> >
> > I've updated the patch based on review (today). Awaiting new review.
> >
> > FWIW, I don't see the point of these messages when there is a new patch
> > version posted today.
>
> The policy says, "Each update shall state a date when the community will
> receive another update". Nothing you've sent today specifies a deadline for
> your next update, so your ownership of this item remains out of
> compliance.

For me that means the policy isn't quite right. It's not like I can
force Tom to review the patch at a specific date. But the thread has
been progressing steadily over the last days, so I'm not particularly
concerned.

Greetings,

Andres Freund