On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > I seem to be able to produce these sorting patches at a much greater > > rate than they can be committed, in part because Robert is the only > > one that ever reviews them, and he is only one person. Since you think > > the patch is good work, perhaps you can find the time to formally > > review it. > > Finding reviewing volunteers is a good thing, particularly on these > times where we tend to have more patches than reviews, however I would > suggest prioritizing the older items by beginning in what is in the > current CF (47 items waiting for review at I write this message), 3 > patches for the sorting work. > > FWIW, I think that this series of patches is interesting and have high > value because particularly I have seen clear improvements particularly > with raw dumps on schemas with many indexes (disclaimer: I am the guy > Peter talked to regarding this patch though this was not on the top > head nor of my TODOs). > -- > Michael > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > I'm willing, but I'm too new to the codebase to be an effective reviewer (without guidance). The one thing I can offer in the mean time is this: my company/client nearly always has a few spare AWS machines on the largish side where I can compile uncommitted patches and benchmark stuff for y'all.
