On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 13 September 2016 at 08:08, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: >> So, if I've understood correctly, the purpose of this patch is to improve >> performance on a multi-CPU system, which has the kqueue() function. Most >> notably, FreeBSD? > > I'm getting a little fried from "self-documenting" patches, from > multiple sources. > > I think we should make it a firm requirement to explain what a patch > is actually about, with extra points for including with it a test that > allows us to validate that. We don't have enough committer time to > waste on such things.
You've complained about this a whole bunch of times recently, but in most of those cases I didn't think there was any real unclarity. I agree that it's a good idea for a patch to be submitted with suitable submission notes, but it also isn't reasonable to expect those submission notes to be reposted with every single version of every patch. Indeed, I'd find that pretty annoying. Thomas linked back to the previous thread where this was discussed, which seems more or less sufficient. If committers are too busy to click on links in the patch submission emails, they have no business committing anything. -- 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
