On 04/10/2016 10:25 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 9 April 2016 at 18:37, Tatsuo Ishii <is...@postgresql.org
<mailto:is...@postgresql.org>> wrote:

    > But I still think it wouldn't move the patch any closer to committable
    > state, because what it really needs is review whether the catalog
    > definition makes sense, whether it should be more like pg_statistic,
    > and so on. Only then it makes sense to describe the catalog structure
    > in the SGML docs, I think. That's why I added some basic SGML docs for
    > CREATE/DROP/ALTER STATISTICS, which I expect to be rather stable, and
    > not the catalog and other low-level stuff (which is commented heavily
    > in the code anyway).

    Without "user-level docs" (now I understand that the term means all
    SGML docs for you), it is very hard to find a visible
    characteristics/behavior of the patch. CREATE/DROP/ALTER STATISTICS
    just defines a user interface, and does not help how it affects to the
    planning. The READMEs do not help either.

    In this case reviewing your code is something like reviewing a program
    which has no specification.

    That's the reason why I said before below, but it was never seriously

I would likely have said this myself but didn't even get that far.

Your contribution was useful and went further than anybody else's
review, so thank you.

100% agreed. Thanks for the useful feedback.

Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to