Re: Commitfest Bug (was: Re: Reusing abbreviated keys during second pass of ordered [set] aggregates) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Commitfest Bug (was: Re: Reusing abbreviated keys during second pass of ordered [set] aggregates)
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZQKa2Hb-+f1dGj2WLnTbJjVDs0o8HOMQy9BbxCYFTYfWQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Commitfest Bug (was: Re: Reusing abbreviated keys during second pass of ordered [set] aggregates)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> +1 for not moving such patches to the new CF until the author does
> something --- at which point they'd change to "Needs Review" state.
> But we should not change them into that state without author input.
> And I don't see the value of having them in a new CF until the
> author does something.

To be clear: My position was always that it's good that the author has
to do *something* to get their patch into the next CF. It's bad that
this change in state can easily be missed, though. I've now been on
both sides of this, as a patch author and patch reviewer. If the patch
was left as "Waiting on Author", as my review of Alexander's patch
was, then it ought to not change to "Needs Review" silently. That
makes absolutely no sense.


-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Fast temporary tables