On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Greg Smith <gsm...@gregsmith.com> wrote: > I know this patch is attracting more reviewers lately, is anyone tracking > the general architecture of the code yet? Emmanuel's work is tough to > review just because there's so many things mixed together, and there's other > inputs I think should be considered at the same time while we're all testing > in there (such as the COPY patch Andrew Dunstan put together).
I hadn't realized this was an issue, but I think it's a good point: a patch that does one thing well is much more likely to get accepted than a patch that does two things well, let alone two things poorly. It's just much easier to review and verify. Or maybe the name of the patch maybe should have tipped me off: "COPY enhancements" vs. "make COPY have feature X". > What I'd like to see is for everything to get broken more into component > chunks that can get commited and provide something useful one at a time, > because I doubt taskmaster Robert is going to let this one linger around > with scope creep for too long before being pushed out to the next > CommitFest. I'm can't decide whether to feel good or bad about that appelation, so I'm going with both. But in all seriousness if this patch needs substantial reworking (which it sounds like it does) we should postpone it to the next CF; we are quickly running out of days, and it's not fair to reviewers or committers to ask for new reviews of substantially revised code with a only a week to go. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
