On 29 January 2018 at 15:07, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Moreover, the patch should have had meaningful review from people not
> involved in writing it, and that is a process that generally takes a
> few months or at least several weeks, not a few days.
The code is about 1200 lines and has extensive docs, comments and tests.
There are no contentious infrastructure changes, so the debate around
concurrency is probably the main one. So it looks to me like
meaningful review has taken place, though I know Andrew and Pavan have
also looked at it in detail.
But having said that, I'm not rushing to commit and further detailed
review is welcome, hence the CF status.
> An argument could be made that this patch is already too late for PG
> 11, because it's a major feature that was not submitted in relatively
> complete form before the beginning of the penultimate CommitFest. I'm
> not going to make that argument, because I believe this patch is
> probably sufficiently low-risk that it can be committed between now
> and feature freeze without great risk of destabilizing the release.
> But committing it without some in-depth review is not the way to get
> there.
The patch was substantially complete at that time (was v9d). Later
work has changed isolated areas.
I agree that this is low-risk. If I suggest committing it sooner
rather than later it is because that is more likely to throw up bugs
that will increase the eventual quality.
Overall, I'm following the style of development process you have
yourself used a number of times now. Waiting for mega-patches to be
complete is not as useful as phased development.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services