On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Far from the negligence that you seem to be implying, I think Amit was
>> remarkably diligent about providing these kinds of updates.
> I don't think I remotely implied negligence. That word has very severe
> connotations (think "criminal negligence") that are far from what I
> intended.

OK, sorry, I think I misread your tone.

> I don't want to get stuck on that one example, which I acknowledged
> might not be representative when I raised it. I'm not really talking
> about parallel query in particular anyway. I'm mostly arguing for a
> consistent way to get instructions on how to at least build the patch,
> where that might be warranted.
> The CF app is one way. Another good way is: As long as we're using a
> patch series, be explicit about what goes where in the commit message.
> Have message-id references. That sort of thing. I already try to do
> that. That's all.

Yeah, me too.  Generally, although with some exceptions, my practice
is to keep reposting the whole patch stack, so that everything is in
one email.  In this particular case, though, there were patches from
me and patches from Amit, so that was harder to do.  I wasn't using
his patches to test my patches; I had other test code for that.  He
was using my patches as a base for his patches, but linked to them
instead of reposting them.  That's an unusually complicated scenario,
though: it's pretty rare around here to have two developers working
together on something as closely as Amit and I did on those patches.

> Thank you (and Amit) for working really hard on parallelism.


By the way, it bears saying, or if I've said it before repeating, that
although most of the parallelism code that has been committed was
written by me, Amit has made an absolutely invaluable contribution to
parallel query, and it wouldn't be committed today or maybe ever
without that contribution.  In addition to those parts of the code
that were committed as he wrote them, he prototyped quite a number of
things that I ended up rewriting, reviewed a ton of code that I wrote
and found bugs in it, wrote numerous bits and pieces of test code, and
generally put up with an absolutely insane level of me nitpicking his
work, breaking it by committing pieces of it or committing different
pieces that replaced pieces he had, demanding repeated rebases on
short time scales, and generally beating him up in just about every
conceivable way.  I am deeply appreciative of him being willing to
jump into this project, do a ton of work, and put up with me.

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:

Reply via email to