Re: WAL consistency check facility

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:23 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Kuntal Ghosh
> <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Thoughts?
>
> There are still a couple of things that this patch makes me unhappy,
> particularly the handling of the GUC with the xlogreader flags. I am
> not sure if I'll be able to look at that again within the next couple
> of weeks, but please be sure that this is registered in the next
> commit fest. You could for example do that by changing the patch from
> "Returned with Feedback" to "Moved to next CF" in the commit fest app.
> Be sure as well to spend a couple of cycles in reviewing patches.
> Usually for one patch sent, that's one patch of equal difficulty to
> review, and there are many patch still waiting for feedback.

I don't think you have the right to tell Kuntal that he has to move
the patch to the next CommitFest because there are unspecified things
about the current version you don't like. If you don't have time to
review further, that's your call, but he can leave the patch as Needs
Review and see if someone else has time.

You are right that he should review some other people's patches, though.

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