On 3/1/19 12:41 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 3:09 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The only thing that's really clear is that some senior committers don't
>> want to be bothered because they don't think there's a problem here that
>> justifies any additional expenditure of their time. Perhaps they are
>> right, because I'd expected some comments from non-committer developers
>> confirming that they see a problem, and the silence is deafening.
>
> I don't think that you can take that as too strong a signal. The
> incentives are different for non-committers.
>
>> I'm inclined to commit some form of Naylor's tool improvement anyway,
>> because I have use for it; I remember times when I've renumbered OIDs
>> manually in patches, and it wasn't much fun. But I can't force a
>> process change if there's not consensus for it among the committers.
>
> I think that that's a reasonable thing to do, provided there is
> obvious feedback that makes it highly unlikely that the committer will
> make an error at the last moment. I have a hard time coming up with a
> suggestion that won't be considered annoying by at least one person,
> though.
>
FWIW I personally would not mind if such tool / process was added. But I
have a related question - do we have some sort of list of such processes
that I could check? That is, a list of stuff that is expected to be done
by a committer before a commit?
I do recall we have [1], but perhaps we have something else.
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Committing_checklist
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services