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

Re: [FWD] About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch

From: Leonardo F <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [FWD] About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Date: 2010-02-15 09:10:09
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> As outlined in the "Submission timing" section, you're 
> asking about something during the wrong time to be doing so--that's why you're 
> not getting any real feedback.  Add your patch to the next CommitFest by linking 
> to your message at 

But there's something I don't understand: I didn't add the patch to the next
CommitFest because I thought it could never be added in 9.0 (because it adds a
new "feature" which has never been discussed). Hence I thought it should have
been "discussed" (not properly "reviewed") out of a CommitFest.
The "Submission timing" section talks about "beta phase", not "alpha phase", so
I'm stll confused...
In other words: should patches that won't be included in the next release
(because it's too late) still added to the next CommitFest? I thought a very "rough"
discussion was the way to go in these cases, but I'm not familiar at all with the
process... I'll wait for an answer before adding the patch to the CommitFest (and
in case, I'll add more comments and docs to it)

Thank you very much!



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2010-02-15 09:16:58
Subject: Re: [FWD] About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-02-15 08:50:08
Subject: Re: idle in txn query cancellation

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group