Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions
Date
Msg-id 20180303013610.7c75cfm5frdzmmp3@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2018-03-03 02:34:06 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 03/03/2018 02:01 AM, 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.
> > 
> 
> You've used "The patch hasn't moved forward since 2018-01-19," as an
> argument why the patch is not eligible for 2018-03. I suggest that
> argument is misleading, because patches generally do not move without
> reviews, and it's difficult to respond to a review that arrives on the
> last day of a commitfest.
> 
> Consider that without the review, the patch would end up with NR status,
> and would be moved to the next CF automatically. Isn't that a bit weird?

Not sure I follow. The point is that nobody would have complained if
you'd moved the patch into this fest if you'd updated it *before* it
started?

Greetings,

Andres Freund


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions
Next
From: David Steele
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions