Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > We seem to handle trivial patches just fine.
> You keep saying that but I think it's wrong. There are trivial patches that
> were submitted last year that are still sitting in the queue.
You seem to be looking at something different than me. Which patches?
> In fact I claim we handle complex patches better than trivial ones. HOT, LDC,
> DSM etc receive tons of feedback and acquire a momentum of their own.
> Admittedly GII is a counter-example though.
> Well, I claim it's often the trivial patches that require the domain-specific
> knowledge you describe. If they were major patches they would touch more parts
> of the system. But that means they should be easy to commit if you could just
> fill in the missing knowledge.
> Could you pick a non-committer with the domain-specific knowledge you think a
> patch needs and ask for their analysis of the patch then commit it yourself?
> You can still review it for general code quality and trust the non-committer's
> review of whether the domain-specific change is correct.
We are already pushing out patches to people with domain-specific
knowledge. Tom posted that summary today.
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not