On 06/14/2011 01:16 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
But there's no reason that code (which may or may not eventually prove useful) has to be incorporated into the main tree. We don't commit code so people can go benchmark it; we ask for the benchmarking to be done first, and then if the results are favorable, we commit the code.
Who said anything about this being a commit candidate? The "WIP" in the subject says it's not intended to be. The community asks people to submit design ideas early so that ideas around them can be explored publicly. One of the things that needs to be explored, and that could use some community feedback, is exactly how this should be benchmarked in the first place. This topic--planning based on cached percentage--keeps coming up, but hasn't gone very far as an abstract discussion. Having a patch to test lets it turn to a concrete one.
Note that I already listed myself as the reviewer here, so it's not even like this is asking explicitly for a community volunteer to help. Would you like us to research this privately and then dump a giant patch that is commit candidate quality on everyone six months from now, without anyone else getting input to the process, or would you like the work to happen here? I recommended Cédric not ever bother soliciting ideas early, because I didn't want to get into this sort of debate. I avoid sending anything here unless I already have a strong idea about the solution, because it's hard to keep criticism at bay even with that. He was more optimistic about working within the community contribution guidelines and decided to send this over early instead. If you feel this is too rough to even discuss, I'll mark it returned with feedback and we'll go develop this ourselves.
-- 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
