Re: [HACKERS] segfault in HEAD when too many nested functions call

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:08:57PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2017-07-27 22:04:59 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 09:49:18PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2017-07-27 21:46:57 -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 02:29:32AM +0000, Noah Misch wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 08:04:30AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On July 24, 2017 7:10:19 AM GMT+01:00, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 01:04:10PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > > > > >> Ok, I'll flesh out the patch till Thursday.  But I do think we're
> > > > > > >going
> > > > > > >> to have to do something about the back branches, too.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update. 
> > > > > > >Kindly send
> > > > > > >a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent
> > > > > > >status
> > > > > > >update.  Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
> > > > > > >https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I sent out a note fleshed out patch last week, which Tom reviewed. Planning to update it to address that
reviewtoday or tomorrow.
 
> > > > > 
> > > > > This PostgreSQL 10 open item is past due for your status update.  Kindly send
> > > > > a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
> > > > > update.  Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
> > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
> > > > 
> > > > IMMEDIATE ATTENTION REQUIRED.  This PostgreSQL 10 open item is long past due
> > > > for your status update.  Please reacquaint yourself with the policy on open
> > > > item ownership[1] and then reply immediately.  If I do not hear from you by
> > > > 2017-07-29 05:00 UTC, I will transfer this item to release management team
> > > > ownership without further notice.
> > > > 
> > > > [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170404140717.GA2675809%40tornado.leadboat.com
> > > 
> > > I've updated the patch based on review (today). Awaiting new review.
> > > 
> > > FWIW, I don't see the point of these messages when there is a new patch
> > > version posted today.
> > 
> > The policy says, "Each update shall state a date when the community will
> > receive another update".  Nothing you've sent today specifies a deadline for
> > your next update, so your ownership of this item remains out of
> > compliance.
> 
> For me that means the policy isn't quite right.  It's not like I can
> force Tom to review the patch at a specific date. But the thread has
> been progressing steadily over the last days, so I'm not particularly
> concerned.

Your colleagues achieve compliance despite uncertainty; for inspiration, I
recommend examining Alvaro's status updates as examples of this.  The policy
currently governs your open items even if you disagree with it.