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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYxJHC70sth17bLAks7J9+MAOWz-bJ4mDrNXEHe4j2KSQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sometime this type of high-level summary review does happen, at the senior
> person's whim, but is not a formal part of the commit fest process.
>
> What I don't know is how much work it takes for one of those senior people
> to make one of those summary judgments, compared to how much it takes for
> them to just do an entire review from scratch.

IME, making such summary judgements can often be done in a few
minutes, but convincing that the patch submitter that you haven't
created the objection purely as an obstacle to progress is the work of
a lifetime.  We could perhaps do better at avoiding perverse
incentives, there.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Further pg_upgrade analysis for many tables
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Thinking about WITH CHECK OPTION for views