Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > I remind you, though, that the most painful point that caused the > commitfest process to come into existance was the HOT patch, which > was very large and intrusive and didn't get any review until very > late in the cycle. So getting some review earlier than at the > last minute is important. I've tried to avoid that by keeping a Wiki up-to-date with design, status, and issues publicly available. I've been pushing the code to a public git repo as it's been developed, since January. I avoided discussing issues like the one causing the current refactoring on-list for several months because Tom complained that such discussions were distracting from the effort to get 9.0 out the door, but I submitted a WIP patch to the first 9.1 CF and a patch I had hopes of seeing committed to the second 9.1 CF. I've missed submitting to this CF, but it would be entirely wrong to say that the patch has had no review. Joe Conway did a round of review, although much of the discussion was off-list. This resulted in a commit of a portion of the patch which could be usefully split out. Heikki Linnakangas didn't officially sign up as a reviewer, but he posted a lot of questions and suggestions showing that he had looked at the code. Jeff Davis gave it an official review, ultimately resulting in a disposition of "Returned with Feedback". There is the one big issue of degrading gracefully in the face of a long-running transaction concurrent with many shorter ones, which I am attempting to address now. All of the above reviews have resulted in changes to the code which I feel are improvements on the initial effort. I've been doing everything I can thing of to avoid having this be a last minute submission while still "playing nice" with the community. Any suggestions on what else I can do to improve this are welcome. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
