Обсуждение: ready for another one, i guess
I reviewed Peter Eisentraut's TABLE command - needs more work. Heikki has not responded to my request for a status update on optimizing COPY with memchr, so I think there is nothing to do on that one for now. It looks like it is still WIP. I have updated the Wiki with status on these two patches. ...Robert
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > I reviewed Peter Eisentraut's TABLE command - needs more work. > > Heikki has not responded to my request for a status update on > optimizing COPY with memchr, so I think there is nothing to do on that > one for now. It looks like it is still WIP. > > I have updated the Wiki with status on these two patches. Thanks Robert. I assume you want another one - posix_fadvise? If that's OK, please mark the wiki page. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
I think that one probably needs review from -core. It's been extensively discussed on -hackers several times already, and is on version 19, so I doubt there are obvious bugs remaining. Arguably it could use additional performance testing, though I think Greg has done quite a bit already, but I'm not in a good position to undertake that either for a patch of this type. ...Robert On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:05 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:14 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> I reviewed Peter Eisentraut's TABLE command - needs more work. >> >> Heikki has not responded to my request for a status update on >> optimizing COPY with memchr, so I think there is nothing to do on that >> one for now. It looks like it is still WIP. >> >> I have updated the Wiki with status on these two patches. > > Thanks Robert. I assume you want another one - posix_fadvise? If > that's OK, please mark the wiki page. > > -- > Dave Page > EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com >
On Wed, 2008-11-12 at 17:39 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think that one probably needs review from -core. It's been
> extensively discussed on -hackers several times already, and is on
> version 19, so I doubt there are obvious bugs remaining.
>
> Arguably it could use additional performance testing, though I think
> Greg has done quite a bit already, but I'm not in a good position to
> undertake that either for a patch of this type.
>
I am reviewing the two GIN patches, but I won't be able to really dig
into them until this weekend. Help would be welcome, if there are no
other higher-priority patches to review.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > I think that one probably needs review from -core. -core's role is not quite what you think. We essentially do project management. The review I think you're suggesting is from a committer (this is a little overlap between those groups of course). > It's been > extensively discussed on -hackers several times already, and is on > version 19, so I doubt there are obvious bugs remaining. It's been discussed, but I don't think anyone has done any actual code review though. > Arguably it could use additional performance testing, though I think > Greg has done quite a bit already, but I'm not in a good position to > undertake that either for a patch of this type. I share an office with him, so I can say that yes, he has done a good amount of testing (in fact, I don't think people realise just how much R&D went into this patch)! I'd appreciate a code review of it, but if you really don't want to do that, please see if you can help Jeff out with the GIN patches. Thanks! -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
OK, I'll take a look, time permitting. ...Robert On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:50 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:39 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think that one probably needs review from -core. > > -core's role is not quite what you think. We essentially do project > management. The review I think you're suggesting is from a committer > (this is a little overlap between those groups of course). > >> It's been >> extensively discussed on -hackers several times already, and is on >> version 19, so I doubt there are obvious bugs remaining. > > It's been discussed, but I don't think anyone has done any actual code > review though. > >> Arguably it could use additional performance testing, though I think >> Greg has done quite a bit already, but I'm not in a good position to >> undertake that either for a patch of this type. > > I share an office with him, so I can say that yes, he has done a good > amount of testing (in fact, I don't think people realise just how much > R&D went into this patch)! > > I'd appreciate a code review of it, but if you really don't want to do > that, please see if you can help Jeff out with the GIN patches. > > Thanks! > > -- > Dave Page > EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com >
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > OK, I'll take a look, time permitting. Thanks :-) -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com