Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Heikki Linnakangas
Тема Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres
Дата
Msg-id bf69c150-9f3f-fd1f-a576-6f8a538cd1fb@iki.fi
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres  (Christian Convey <christian.convey@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 09/11/2016 01:20 AM, Christian Convey wrote:
> Hi Heikki,
>
> Could I ask you a newbie-reviewer question about something I'm seeing
> here?  https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/776/
>
> From some reading I've done (e.g., Stephen Frost's PGCon 2011 slides),
> I got the impression that a successful patch would always have this
> sequence of states in commitfest:
>   1. patch-record created
>   ...
>   2. Needs Review
>   ...
>   3. Ready for Committer
>
> But if I'm reading the patch's activity log correctly, it looks like
> you marked the patch as "Ready for Committer" (2016-09-06 18:59:02)
> without any record of it having been reviewed.
>
> Was that intentional?

Yeah, I commented on the patches at 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e8e7e5a7-0308-2c36-d32a-7aab16ba498c%40iki.fi. 
It was very cursory, but I figured that would be sufficient feedback for 
now, for Peter to proceed with the first few straightforward patches in 
the series. I don't think there's consensus that we want to do more than 
that, to actually switch to C++.

> P.S. I'm asking because I was planning to review that patch.  But I
> can't tell if any more review by a non-committer is still required by
> the commitfest workflow.

I think this has gotten enough attention, for the commitfest workflow. 
But of course, if you're interested, feel free to review and comment anyway!

- Heikki




В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Heikki Linnakangas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)
Следующее
От: Heikki Linnakangas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres