Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1V1lA6-0005IH-El for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 22:34:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1V1lA5-0003wr-RJ for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 22:34:29 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1V1lA4-0003wl-OQ for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 22:34:28 +0000 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1V1lA2-0003bU-Ho for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 22:34:28 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.110] (mail.highperformancepostgresql.com [71.179.240.8]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu3) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MVFaD-1UcJNV1C5V-00YTnp; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:34:24 +0200 Message-ID: <51EF04EE.8010504@2ndQuadrant.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:34:22 -0400 From: Greg Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Josh Berkus CC: PgHacker Subject: Re: [v9.4] row level security References: <51E880CF.3000902@gmail.com> <51E8A8C1.2050700@2ndQuadrant.com> <20130719030347.GV15510@tamriel.snowman.net> <51E8ADD9.5020600@2ndQuadrant.com> <51ED95BC.6070400@2ndQuadrant.com> <51EEAB03.2060605@agliodbs.com> <51EEBA84.3030201@2ndQuadrant.com> <51EECBB6.4010504@agliodbs.com> In-Reply-To: <51EECBB6.4010504@agliodbs.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:ZIluY+NISFAkdlyQK53CymHGu4/TV6JQ58ruWfVYdnD OnBzyMattXY9XdeX95EGoJwNoy5uCf7alVrlq8Pz4M1zoRbkrJ ynrst80oD+u8rmTQPRKVr3kTHHanFvZg/xPvevy+1kmwgP6ejA nnGctw0ojzyhAiyerQKiBKF30o9P1N6IJ83qwPLM2Zq73djNjJ J1oY1VvacZL7JFomQlGYgTNyaLf6lo5mqOoFlam30849ROWfMH kIB3cztT2lmA69bpVxKZCNUcmgPgLylQN7PvgqInrymJuP9zJQ Sj9TgwS+Lw8kUHBDr8IlAoMg3MvVBmoCi3YeR5i3ZNP8PHPBSR XJbxWx91AB/F+HmCSg5M= X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org On 7/23/13 2:30 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > You know as well as me that, as consultants, we can get clients to pay for 10% extra time > for review in the course of developing a feature Before this number gets quoted anywhere, I think it's on the low side. I've spent a good bit of time measuring how much time it takes to do a fair offsetting review--one where you put as much time in as it takes to review your submission--and I keep getting numbers more in the 20 to 25% range. The work involved to do a high quality review takes a while. I happen to think the review structure is one of the most important components to PostgreSQL release quality. It used to be a single level review with just the committers, now it's a two level structure. The reason the Postgres code is so good isn't that the submitted development is inherently any better than other projects. There's plenty of bogus material submitted here. It's the high standards for review and commit that are the key filter. The importance of the process to the result isn't weighed as heavily as I think it should be. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers