On 04/10/2016 10:25 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
On 9 April 2016 at 18:37, Tatsuo Ishii <is...@postgresql.org
> 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 (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: