Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)
Date: 2013-01-20 18:42:45
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYxJHC70sth17bLAks7J9+MAOWz-bJ4mDrNXEHe4j2KSQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Sometime this type of high-level summary review does happen, at the senior
> person's whim, but is not a formal part of the commit fest process.
>
> What I don't know is how much work it takes for one of those senior people
> to make one of those summary judgments, compared to how much it takes for
> them to just do an entire review from scratch.

IME, making such summary judgements can often be done in a few
minutes, but convincing that the patch submitter that you haven't
created the objection purely as an obstacle to progress is the work of
a lifetime. We could perhaps do better at avoiding perverse
incentives, there.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2013-01-20 18:42:56 Re: Thinking about WITH CHECK OPTION for views
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2013-01-20 18:42:29 Re: Further pg_upgrade analysis for many tables