| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Key management with tests |
| Date: | 2021-01-18 19:00:38 |
| Message-ID: | 20210118190038.bgr3w7trvwo65ib2@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-01-18 13:58:20 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:42:54AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Personally, but I admit that there's legitimate reasons to differ on
> > that note, I don't think it's reasonable for a feature this invasive to
> > commit preliminary patches without the major subsequent patches being in
> > a shape that allows reviewing the whole picture.
>
> OK, if that is a requirement, I can't help anymore since there are
> already complaints that the patch is too large to review, even if broken
> into pieces. Please let me know what the community decides.
Those aren't conflicting demands. Having later patches around to
validate the design of earlier patches doesn't necessitates that the
later patches need to be reviewed at the same time.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zhihong Yu | 2021-01-18 19:23:42 | Re: search_plan_tree(): handling of non-leaf CustomScanState nodes causes segfault |
| Previous Message | Tom Kincaid | 2021-01-18 19:00:21 | Re: Key management with tests |