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 considered. 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
