On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > And, by the way, the patch, aside from the deadlock.c portion, was > posted back in October, admittedly without much fanfare, but nobody > reviewed that or any other patch on this thread. If I'd waited for > those reviews to come in, parallel query would not be committed now, > nor probably in 9.6, nor probably in 9.7 or 9.8 either. The whole > project would just be impossible on its face. It would be impossible > in the first instance if I did not have a commit bit, because there is > just not enough committer bandwidth - even reviewer bandwidth more > generally - to review the number of patches that I've submitted > related to parallelism, so in the end some, perhaps many, of those are > going to be committed mostly on the strength of my personal opinion > that committing them is better than not committing them. I am going > to have a heck of a lot of egg on my face if it turns out that I've > been too aggressive in pushing this stuff into the tree. But, > basically, the alternative is that we don't get the feature, and I > think the feature is important enough to justify taking some risk.
FWIW, I appreciate your candor. However, I think that you could have done a better job of making things easier for reviewers, even if that might not have made an enormous difference. I suspect I would have not been able to get UPSERT done as a non-committer if it wasn't for the epic wiki page, that made it at least possible for someone to jump in. To be more specific, I thought it was really hard to test parallel sequential scan a few months ago, because there was so many threads and so many dependencies. I appreciate that we now use git format-patch patch series for complicated stuff these days, but it's important to make it clear how everything fits together. That's actually what I was thinking about when I said we need to be clear on how things fit together from the CF app patch page, because there doesn't seem to be a culture of being particular about that, having good "annotations", etc. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers