Re: ProcessUtility_hook - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: ProcessUtility_hook
Date
Msg-id 16534.1259634299@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ProcessUtility_hook  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: ProcessUtility_hook  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Re: ProcessUtility_hook  (Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> So, if someone writes a patch, and it is reviewed, and the patch author
> updates the patch and replies, it still should be reviewed again before
> being committed?

Well, that's for the reviewer to say --- if the update satisfies his
concerns, he should sign off on it, if not not.  I've tried to avoid
pre-empting that process.

> Also, we are two weeks into the commit fest and we have more unapplied
> patches than applied ones.

Yup.  Lots of unfinished reviews out there.  Robert spent a good deal
of effort in the last two fests trying to light fires under reviewers;
do you want to take up that cudgel?  I think wholesale commits of things
that haven't finished review is mostly going to send a signal that the
review process doesn't matter, which is *not* the signal I think we
should send.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: ProcessUtility_hook
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: ProcessUtility_hook