On 12/07/2011 04:58 PM, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
PS: I forgot to mention that 2 test cases covering the two above query types are deliberately left failing in the v4-wip patch.
It's not completely clear what happens next with this. Are you hoping code churn here has calmed down enough for Jaime or someone else to try and look at this more already? Or should we wait for a new update based on the feedback that Heikki and Tom have already provided first, perhaps one that proposes fixes for these two test cases?
One general suggestion about the fight with upstream changes you've run into here. Now that you're settling into the git workflow, you might consider publishing updates to a site like Github in the future too. That lets testing of the code at the point you wrote it always possible. Given just the patch, reviewers normally must reconcile any bit rot before they can even compile your code to try it. That gets increasingly sketchy the longer your patch waits before the next CommitFest considers it. With a published git working tree, reviewers can pull that for some hands-on testing whenever, even if a merge wouldn't actually work out at that point. You just need to be careful not to push an update that isn't self-consistent to the world. I normally attach the best formatted patch I can and publish to Github. Then reviewers can use whichever they find easier, and always have the option of postponing a look at merge issues if they just want to play with the program.
-- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US g...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
