X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F0739FA0B9 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2006 21:08:43 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 54441-09 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2006 21:08:33 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.skype.net (mail.skype.net [195.215.8.149]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB3A69FB1C8 for ; Mon, 4 Sep 2006 21:08:33 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68A424E0F4; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 02:08:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.10.10.5] (217-159-136-226-dsl.kt.estpak.ee [217.159.136.226]) by mail.skype.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193674DF10; Tue, 5 Sep 2006 02:07:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Trivial patch to double vacuum speed From: Hannu Krosing To: "Joshua D. Drake" Cc: Tom Lane , Bruce Momjian , Alvaro Herrera , Gregory Stark , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <44FCBC03.2000507@commandprompt.com> References: <200609042253.k84MrJp19066@momjian.us> <15844.1157413254@sss.pgh.pa.us> <44FCBC03.2000507@commandprompt.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 03:07:55 +0300 Message-Id: <1157414875.3391.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 (2.6.3-1.fc5.5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.063 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, SPF_PASS X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200609/411 X-Sequence-Number: 89940 Ühel kenal päeval, E, 2006-09-04 kell 16:51, kirjutas Joshua D. Drake: > > I don't have a concrete proposal to make, but I do think that the > > current patch-queue process is not suited to the project as it stands > > today. Maybe if this issue-tracking stuff gets off the ground, we > > could let developers place ACK or NAK flags on patches they've looked > > at, and have some rule about ACK-vs-NAK requirements for something to go > > in. > > How about *requiring* test cases that prove the patch? Test cases are good for checking if some latter patch does not break the functionality provided by current patch. They are almost useless for proving that current patch is correct. > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > > > > > > regards, tom lane > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > > > > -- ---------------- Hannu Krosing Database Architect Skype Technologies OÜ Akadeemia tee 21 F, Tallinn, 12618, Estonia Skype me: callto:hkrosing Get Skype for free: http://www.skype.com