| From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
| Date: | 2018-03-03 01:37:26 |
| Message-ID: | ecc17b46-c2e6-5ed4-eb16-eb6bcb0908bd@pgmasters.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/2/18 8:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-03-03 02:00:46 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> That is somewhat misleading, I think. You're right the last version was
>> submitted on 2018-01-19, but the next review arrived on 2018-01-31, i.e.
>> right at the end of the CF. So it's not like the patch was sitting there
>> with unresolved issues. Based on that review the patch was marked as RWF
>> and thus not moved to 2018-03 automatically.
>
> I don't see how this changes anything.
I agree that things could be clearer, and Andres has produced a great
document that we can build on. The old one had gotten a bit stale.
However, I think it's pretty obvious that a CF entry should be
accompanied with a patch. It sounds like the timing was awkward but you
still had 28 days to produce a new patch.
I also notice that you submitted 7 patches in this CF but are reviewing
zero.
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-03-03 01:54:41 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-03-03 01:36:10 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |