On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2014-04-07 14:35:23 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: >> That said, for my part, I don't like telling Greg that >> he either has to review something else which was submitted but that he's >> got no interest in (or which would take much longer), or not do >> anything. > > Reviewing and committing are two very different shoes imo. This > discussion wasn't about it getting reviewed before the next CF, but > about committing it into 9.4.
Yes. I did not object to this patch being posted in the midst of trying to nail down this release, and I certainly do not object to Greg, or Stephen, or anyone else reviewing it. My note was specifically prompted not by someone say they intended to *review* the patch, but that they intended to *commit* it when it hasn't even really been reviewed yet. There are patches that are trivial enough that it's fine for someone to commit them without a public review first, but this isn't remotely close to being in that category. If nothing else, the fact that it extends the definition of the btree opclass is sufficient reason to merit a public review. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
