Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)
Date
Msg-id 20130123171908.GB22758@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 02:04:14PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> >> IMHO that's the single most important task of a review.
> 
> > Really?  I'd say the most important task for a review is "does the patch
> > do what it says it does?".  That is, if the patch is supposed to
> > implement feature X, does it actually?  If it's a performance patch,
> > does performance actually improve?
> 
> > If the patch doesn't implement what it's supposed to, who cares what the
> > code looks like?
> 
> But even before that, you have to ask whether what it's supposed to do
> is something we want.

Yep.  Our TODO list has a pretty short summary of this at the top:
       Desirability -> Design -> Implement -> Test -> Review -> Commit

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve concurrency of foreign key locking
Next
From: Phil Sorber
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pg_isready (was: [WIP] pg_ping utility)