On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Far from the negligence that you seem to be implying, I think Amit was > remarkably diligent about providing these kinds of updates.
I don't think I remotely implied negligence. That word has very severe connotations (think "criminal negligence") that are far from what I intended. > I admittedly didn't duplicate those same updates on the parallel > mode/contexts thread to which you replied, but that's partly because I > would often whack around that patch first and then Amit would adjust > his patch to cope with my changes after the fact. That doesn't seem > to have been the case in this particular example, but if this is the > closest thing you can come up with to a process failure during the > development of parallel query, I'm not going to be sad about it: I'm > going to have a beer. Seriously: we worked really hard at this. I don't want to get stuck on that one example, which I acknowledged might not be representative when I raised it. I'm not really talking about parallel query in particular anyway. I'm mostly arguing for a consistent way to get instructions on how to at least build the patch, where that might be warranted. The CF app is one way. Another good way is: As long as we're using a patch series, be explicit about what goes where in the commit message. Have message-id references. That sort of thing. I already try to do that. That's all. Thank you (and Amit) for working really hard on parallelism. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
