Gregory Stark <st...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: >> As for the process used, I think it is useful to understand how >> committers choose what to work on next. ...
> It's not just "unfair". It's counter-productive. It means you're ignoring the > very patches whose authors are mostly likely to be responsive to requests to > change them. And who would be most likely to be fertile ground for further > improvements. I don't think you can honestly argue that the replication-related patches are getting ignored. AFAICT there's quite a lot of review effort going on around them. KaiGai-san probably has a legitimate beef about lack of review on his patch, but the replication patches do not. It's true that stuff isn't going to get *committed* until it seems reasonably stable, but I hope you weren't arguing for that. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers