Re: Recovery Test Framework

Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>> As for the process used, I think it is useful to understand how
>> committers choose what to work on next. ...

> It's not just "unfair". It's counter-productive. It means you're ignoring the
> very patches whose authors are mostly likely to be responsive to requests to
> change them. And who would be most likely to be fertile ground for further
> improvements.

I don't think you can honestly argue that the replication-related
patches are getting ignored.  AFAICT there's quite a lot of review
effort going on around them.  KaiGai-san probably has a legitimate
beef about lack of review on his patch, but the replication patches
do not.

It's true that stuff isn't going to get *committed* until it seems
reasonably stable, but I hope you weren't arguing for that.
        regards, tom lane