On ons, 2010-10-20 at 11:12 +0100, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Can I take it that there is no need for a formal review, where I
> answer various questions per
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Reviewing_a_Patch?
The short answer is no. But note that there is no such thing as a
"formal" review. The
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Peter Geoghegan
wrote:
>> I have committed the patch and the text proposed above.
>
> Can I take it that there is no need for a formal review, where I
> answer various questions per
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Reviewing_a_Patch?
That is correct. That page i
> I have committed the patch and the text proposed above.
Can I take it that there is no need for a formal review, where I
answer various questions per
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Reviewing_a_Patch?
--
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgres
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> I may be in the minority here, but I'm inclined to just apply this and
>>> move on.
>>
>> FWIW, I agree with applying the code patch as-is, but I think we need to
>>
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> I may be in the minority here, but I'm inclined to just apply this and
>> move on.
>
> FWIW, I agree with applying the code patch as-is, but I think we need to
> consider the documentation. Specifically:
>
> 1. The first p
Robert Haas writes:
> I may be in the minority here, but I'm inclined to just apply this and
> move on.
FWIW, I agree with applying the code patch as-is, but I think we need to
consider the documentation. Specifically:
1. The first para of
http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/isn.htm
On 18 October 2010 16:17, Tom Lane wrote:
> Personally I was hoping for some independent validation that the
> proposed changes match current reality in ISN-land. But apparently
> no one actually wants to repeat the research, so we might as well just
> take the changes on faith.
I'm not at all s
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan writes:
>>> I may be in the minority here, but I'm inclined to just apply this and
>>> move on. I agree with your concerns that this whole module is badly
>>> designed and that the approach of hard-coding the list of ISBN ranges
Peter Geoghegan writes:
>> I may be in the minority here, but I'm inclined to just apply this and
>> move on. I agree with your concerns that this whole module is badly
>> designed and that the approach of hard-coding the list of ISBN ranges
>> is fundamentally unscalable, but unless we're going
> I may be in the minority here, but I'm inclined to just apply this and
> move on. I agree with your concerns that this whole module is badly
> designed and that the approach of hard-coding the list of ISBN ranges
> is fundamentally unscalable, but unless we're going to rip it out or
> rearchitec
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Peter Geoghegan
wrote:
> Whoops...seems there was some minor mangling when I applied the
> original patch by:
>
> pe...@linux-peter-home:~/postgresql> patch --version
> GNU patch 2.6.1.81-5b68
> snip***
> pe...@linux-peter-home:~/postgresql> patch -c < contrib_i
On 13 October 2010 13:45, Jan Otto wrote:
> we can only prove self-consistency, because there is no algorithm behind
> the scene. the ranges gets applied to publishers depending on how much
> books they publishing over time and probably other criteria.
What about the issue I raised about new rang
hi tom,
>> Peter Eisentraut asked Jan to produce a regression test for the ISN
>> contrib module, which he is apparently working on. I would like to see
>> him more clearly explaining how that will work though - so far, it's
>> really just been described in very broad strokes.
>
> Even more to th
hi peter,
> I would like to hear what people think of my observations about the
> design of contrib/isn. In particular, I'd like Jan Otto to contribute
> - he probably has more domain knowledge than I do. I haven't heard
> from Jan about the proposed regression test.
>
> In producing this patch,
I would like to hear what people think of my observations about the
design of contrib/isn. In particular, I'd like Jan Otto to contribute
- he probably has more domain knowledge than I do. I haven't heard
from Jan about the proposed regression test.
In producing this patch, did you work off the li
Whoops...seems there was some minor mangling when I applied the
original patch by:
pe...@linux-peter-home:~/postgresql> patch --version
GNU patch 2.6.1.81-5b68
snip***
pe...@linux-peter-home:~/postgresql> patch -c < contrib_isn-1.patch
I've attached a revised version, which I've carefully ey
Peter Geoghegan writes:
> Peter Eisentraut asked Jan to produce a regression test for the ISN
> contrib module, which he is apparently working on. I would like to see
> him more clearly explaining how that will work though - so far, it's
> really just been described in very broad strokes.
Even mo
17 matches
Mail list logo
