Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>> As for the process used, I think it is useful to understand how
>> committers choose what to work on next. ...
> It's not just "unfair". It's counter-productive. It means you're ignoring the
> very patches whose authors are mostly likely to be responsive to requests to
> change them. And who would be most likely to be fertile ground for further
> improvements.
I don't think you can honestly argue that the replication-related
patches are getting ignored. AFAICT there's quite a lot of review
effort going on around them. KaiGai-san probably has a legitimate
beef about lack of review on his patch, but the replication patches
do not.
It's true that stuff isn't going to get *committed* until it seems
reasonably stable, but I hope you weren't arguing for that.
regards, tom lane
