On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Far from the negligence that you seem to be implying, I think Amit was
> remarkably diligent about providing these kinds of updates.
I don't think I remotely implied negligence. That word has very severe
connotations (think "criminal negligence") that are far from what I
intended.
> I admittedly didn't duplicate those same updates on the parallel
> mode/contexts thread to which you replied, but that's partly because I
> would often whack around that patch first and then Amit would adjust
> his patch to cope with my changes after the fact. That doesn't seem
> to have been the case in this particular example, but if this is the
> closest thing you can come up with to a process failure during the
> development of parallel query, I'm not going to be sad about it: I'm
> going to have a beer. Seriously: we worked really hard at this.
I don't want to get stuck on that one example, which I acknowledged
might not be representative when I raised it. I'm not really talking
about parallel query in particular anyway. I'm mostly arguing for a
consistent way to get instructions on how to at least build the patch,
where that might be warranted.
The CF app is one way. Another good way is: As long as we're using a
patch series, be explicit about what goes where in the commit message.
Have message-id references. That sort of thing. I already try to do
that. That's all.
Thank you (and Amit) for working really hard on parallelism.
--
Peter Geoghegan