On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> writes: >> Does the community think that experimental performance testing is a >> must-have in order for this patch to be acceptable? > > Dunno about others, but I think so. It's complicating both the > implementation and the users-eye view of VACUUM, and I want more than > a hypothesis that we're going to get something useful out of that. > > If we can't test it in a reasonable time frame for this commitfest, > then we should move it to the queue for the next one.
Despite my recent screw-up in this department, it should really be the patch author's responsibility to test the patch first. Then the reviewing process can involve additional testing. So I would say this should be moved to Returned With Feedback, and then it can be resubmitted later with test results. The problem with bumping things to the next CommitFest is that it then becomes the CommitFest management team's problem to sort out which patches were bumped but the necessary to-do items weren't completed, versus being the patch author's problem to let us know when they have completed the necessary to-do items. So I am in favor of a policy that things should only be moved to the next CommitFest when they have ALREADY satisfied the requirements for being reviewed during that CommitFest. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
