On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deola...@gmail.com> wrote: > We have a design to convert WARM chains back to HOT and that will increase > the percentage of WARM updates much beyond 50%. I was waiting for feedback > on the basic patch before putting in more efforts, but it went unnoticed > last CF.
While you did sign up to review one patch in the last CF, the amount of review you did for that patch is surely an order of magnitude less than what WARM will require. Maybe more than that. I don't mean to point the finger at you specifically -- there are lots of people slinging patches into the CommitFest who aren't doing as much review as their own patches will require. I'm putting a lot of time into reviewing patches this year, and basically none into writing my own, but I still can't review every major patch that somebody submits. I can't even do committer review of all of those patches, let alone first-round review. Perhaps I ought to rank the things I review by descending order of importance, in which case this arguably ought to be pretty high on the list. But I'd feel somewhat bad working on this instead of, say, multivariate statistics or unique joins, which have been pending for a lot longer. Anyway, the point, not just to you but to everybody, is that the review can't always be left to other people. Some people will review and not contribute any code, and that's great. Some people will contribute code but not review, and to the extent that we can support that, it's also great. But the giant backlog of unreviewed patches which has accumulated shows that we have too many people needing more review than they produce, and that is not great. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
