On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 3:11 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Pavan Deolasee
> <pavan.deola...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > We have a design to convert WARM chains back to HOT and that will
> increase
> > the percentage of WARM updates much beyond 50%. I was waiting for
> feedback
> > on the basic patch before putting in more efforts, but it went unnoticed
> > last CF.
> While you did sign up to review one patch in the last CF, the amount
> of review you did for that patch is surely an order of magnitude less
> than what WARM will require.  Maybe more than that.  I don't mean to
> point the finger at you specifically -- there are lots of people
> slinging patches into the CommitFest who aren't doing as much review
> as their own patches will require.

I understand the point you're trying to make and I am not complaining that
WARM did not receive a review, even though I would very much like that to
happen because I see it's a right step forward in solving some of the
problems Postgres users face. But I also understand that every committer
and developer is busy with the stuff that they see important and

To be fair to myself, I did try to find patches with equal or more
complexity. But most of them had (multiple) reviewers assigned and were
being discussed for weeks and months. I did not think I could contribute
positively to those discussions, mostly because meaningful review at that
point would require much more in-depth knowledge of the area. So I picked
couple of patches which did not have any reviewers. May be not the best
decision, but I did what I thought was correct.

I'll try to do more review in the next CF. Obviously that does not
guarantee that WARM will see a reviewer, but hopefully I would have done my


 Pavan Deolasee                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Reply via email to