On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:11 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Pavan Deolasee > <pavan.deola...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We have a design to convert WARM chains back to HOT and that will > increase > > the percentage of WARM updates much beyond 50%. I was waiting for > feedback > > on the basic patch before putting in more efforts, but it went unnoticed > > last CF. > > While you did sign up to review one patch in the last CF, the amount > of review you did for that patch is surely an order of magnitude less > than what WARM will require. Maybe more than that. I don't mean to > point the finger at you specifically -- there are lots of people > slinging patches into the CommitFest who aren't doing as much review > as their own patches will require. I understand the point you're trying to make and I am not complaining that WARM did not receive a review, even though I would very much like that to happen because I see it's a right step forward in solving some of the problems Postgres users face. But I also understand that every committer and developer is busy with the stuff that they see important and interesting. To be fair to myself, I did try to find patches with equal or more complexity. But most of them had (multiple) reviewers assigned and were being discussed for weeks and months. I did not think I could contribute positively to those discussions, mostly because meaningful review at that point would require much more in-depth knowledge of the area. So I picked couple of patches which did not have any reviewers. May be not the best decision, but I did what I thought was correct. I'll try to do more review in the next CF. Obviously that does not guarantee that WARM will see a reviewer, but hopefully I would have done my bit. Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
