Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYxJHC70sth17bLAks7J9+MAOWz-bJ4mDrNXEHe4j2KSQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution) (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: CF3+4 (was Re: Parallel query execution)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote: > Sometime this type of high-level summary review does happen, at the senior > person's whim, but is not a formal part of the commit fest process. > > What I don't know is how much work it takes for one of those senior people > to make one of those summary judgments, compared to how much it takes for > them to just do an entire review from scratch. IME, making such summary judgements can often be done in a few minutes, but convincing that the patch submitter that you haven't created the objection purely as an obstacle to progress is the work of a lifetime. We could perhaps do better at avoiding perverse incentives, there. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: