Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Date: 2018-01-30 16:01:14
Message-ID: CA+Tgmobq87FsRqzimbsq0WuPwZejJoO8oYyk3BJecpoOhR254Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:15 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 04:34:48PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> In terms of timing of commits, I have marked the patch Ready For
>> Committer. To me that signifies that it is ready for review by a
>> Committer prior to commit.
>
> My understanding of this meaning is different than yours. It should not
> be the author's role to mark his own patch as ready for committer, but
> the role of one or more people who have reviewed in-depth the proposed
> patch and feature concepts. If you can get a committer-level individual
> to review your patch, then good for you. But review basics need to
> happen first. And based on my rough lookup of this thread this has not
> happened yet. Other people on this thread are pointing out that as
> well.

+1 to all of that.

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oliver Ford 2018-01-30 16:08:03 Re: Add RANGE with values and exclusions clauses to the Window Functions
Previous Message Robert Haas 2018-01-30 15:59:32 Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11