| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11 |
| Date: | 2018-01-30 00:15:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20180130001513.GA27287@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 04:34:48PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> In terms of timing of commits, I have marked the patch Ready For
> Committer. To me that signifies that it is ready for review by a
> Committer prior to commit.
My understanding of this meaning is different than yours. It should not
be the author's role to mark his own patch as ready for committer, but
the role of one or more people who have reviewed in-depth the proposed
patch and feature concepts. If you can get a committer-level individual
to review your patch, then good for you. But review basics need to
happen first. And based on my rough lookup of this thread this has not
happened yet. Other people on this thread are pointing out that as
well.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-01-30 00:28:59 | Re: Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window Functions |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-01-30 00:06:03 | Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |