Robert Haas wrote:
The OP says that this patch maintains the WAL-before-data rule without any explanation of how it accomplishes that seemingly quite amazing feat. I assume I'm going to have to read this patch at some point to refute this assertion, and I think 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 g...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
