Robert Haas wrote:
> The OP says that this patch maintains the WAL-before-data rule without any explanation of how it accomplishes that
seeminglyquite amazing feat. I assume I'm going to have to read this patch at some point to refute this assertion, and
Ithink that sucks.
I don't think you have to read any patch that doesn't follow the
submission guidelines. The fact that you do is a great contribution to
the community. But if I were suggesting how your time would be best
spent improving PostgreSQL, "reviewing patches that don't meet coding
standards" would be at the bottom of the list. There's always something
better for the project you could be working on instead.
I just added
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Submitting_a_Patch#Reasons_your_patch_might_be_returned
, recycling some existing text, adding some new suggestions.
I hope I got the tone of that text right. The intention was to have a
polite but clear place to point submitters to when their suggestion
doesn't meet the normal standards here, such that they might even get
bounced before even entering normal CommitFest review. This MMAP patch
looks like it has all 5 of the problems mentioned on that now more
focused list.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
