On Apr 16, 2011, at 1:48 AM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > P.S. You know what else I feel should earn an automatic rejection without any > reviewer even looking at the code?
Greg is absolutely right. And to the two he listed, let me add another of my own gripes: failing to provide submission notes that explain how the patch works, and how it addresses the conceptually difficult issues raised previously. The OP says that this patch maintains the WAL-before-data rule without any explanation of how it accomplishes that seemingly quite amazing feat. I assume I'm going to have to read this patch at some point to refute this assertion, and I think that sucks. I am pretty nearly 100% confident that this approach is utterly doomed, and I don't want to spend a lot of time on it unless someone can provide me with a compelling explanation of why my confidence is misplaced. But spending a lot of time on it is exactly what I'm going to have to do, because reading a undocumented patch full of spurious garbage to refute a hand-wavy claim of correctness is time-consuming, and if I give up on it without reading it, someone will yell "unfair, unfair!" None of this is to say that I don't appreciate Radoslaw's interest in contributing, because I very much do. But I also think it's important to realize that we have a finite number of reviewers and they have finite time. Trying to minimize the amount of time that it takes someone to review or commit your patch is a service to the whole community, and we should acknowledge that it has value and appreciate the people who consistently do it. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
