patches that could use additional reviewers

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> * Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:09 PM, David E. Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Frankly, I think you should surrender some of those 14 and cajole some other folks to take on more.
>>
>> Happily...  only trouble is, I suck at cajoling.  Even my begging is
>> distinctly sub-par.
>>
>> Pleeeeeeeease?
>
> Erm, I've been through the commitfest app a couple of different times,
> but have ignored things which are marked 'Needs Reivew' when there's a
> reviewer listed...
>
> If there are patches where you're marked as the reviewer but you don't
> have time to review them or want help, take your name off as a reviewer
> for them and/or speak up and explicitly ask for help.  I'm not going to
> start reviewing something if I think someone else is already working on
> it..

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
Change pg_last_xlog_receive_location not to move backwards

A few other ones that could use more reviewers include:

range types
key locks
widen scale factor limit from pgbench

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

And there are a few patches with no reviewer at all.

PL/Python invalidate composite argument functions
PL/Python tracebacks
contrib/btree_gist (submitted very late)
SQL/MED - file_fdw

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company