Re: Changing WAL Header to reduce contention during ReserveXLogInsertLocation()

I suggest we focus on the engineering. I've not discussed this patch
with Pavan offline.

On 23 March 2018 at 23:32, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:06:48AM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> Your assumption that I would commit a new patch that was 29 mins old
>> is frankly pretty ridiculous, so yes, lets keep calm.
>
> When a committer says that a patch is "ready for commit" and that he
> calls for "last objections", I am understanding that you would be ready
> to commit the patch from the moment such an email has been sent.  Am I
> the only one to think so?  Now let's look at the numbers:
> - The last patch sent is a v2, which implements a completely new
> approach compared to v1.  This is a non-trivial patch which touches
> sensitive parts of the code.
> - v2 has been sent exactly two weeks after the last email exchanged on
> this thread.
> - Per the data publicly available, it took less than 30 minutes to
> review the patch, and there are zero comments about its contents.
> I do patch review on a more-or-less daily basis, and look at threads on
> hackers on a daily basis, but I really rarely see such an "efficient"
> review pattern.  You and Pavan have likely discussed the patch offline,
> but nobody can guess what has been discussed and what have been the
> arguments exchanged.
>
>> Enjoy your weekend and I'll be happy to read your review on Monday.
>
> Er.  So this basically means that I need to do a commitment to look at
> this patch in such a short time frame?  If you are asking for reviews,
> doing such requests by asking a proper question rather than by implying
> it in an affirmation would seem more adapted to me, so this email bit is
> making me uncomfortable.  My apologies if I am not able to catch the
> nuance in those words.
> --
> Michael



-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services