Message-ID: <bdf08089-eb79-e96d-b8ce-4779000bba5a@timescale.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2022 13:40:51 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: Map WAL segment files on PMEM as WAL buffers
Content-Language: en-US
To: Takashi Menjo <takashi.menjo@gmail.com>,
 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>,
 Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>,
 Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Heikki Linnakangas
 <hlinnaka@iki.fi>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com>,
 "Deng, Gang" <gang.deng@intel.com>,
 Takashi Menjo <takashi.menjou.vg@hco.ntt.co.jp>,
 Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>,
 Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
References: 
 <CAOwnP3N6Zi2nQ0WzuXA69w2mhZ5R5uvVJUDNH92CTA09MErh9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220106040000.GU14051@telsasoft.com>
 <CA+hUKGL4CjH5+ZJGwgZapj0ZSPbptCz=kHPDEu-N+JJMRANZtA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220106051908.GV14051@telsasoft.com>
 <CAOwnP3PSDxKhBUGS=97_b44s65DxaGexJB2-Nbmf7SGiLUJ2pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220107044337.GB14051@telsasoft.com> <20220117073444.GZ14051@telsasoft.com>
 <CAOwnP3MKmca24HVVkmw0KL6KR8cXLk14C=-UE3YejbjS08b6qQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOwnP3PvE1VtwuezUoLtnKMnL=zJWutybFdtSHCgVbD7hhrhAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOwnP3PT3KX6LaDoLFAz642WvgPFx9UAzqJASkreR60iH-AtVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220322004439.5pfgu434y3lp7t7t@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CAOwnP3M2rN+EedxizecGvtsT4Zp0jVeQ3x6GVSKnyEJKxdUe+A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jacob Champion <jchampion@timescale.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAOwnP3M2rN+EedxizecGvtsT4Zp0jVeQ3x6GVSKnyEJKxdUe+A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/bdf08089-eb79-e96d-b8ce-4779000bba5a%40timescale.com>
Precedence: bulk

As discussed in [1], we're taking this opportunity to return some
patchsets that don't appear to be getting enough reviewer interest.

This is not a rejection, since we don't necessarily think there's
anything unacceptable about the entry, but it differs from a standard
"Returned with Feedback" in that there's probably not much actionable
feedback at all. Rather than code changes, what this patch needs is more
community interest. You might

- ask people for help with your approach,
- see if there are similar patches that your code could supplement,
- get interested parties to agree to review your patch in a CF, or
- possibly present the functionality in a way that's easier to review
  overall.

(Doing these things is no guarantee that there will be interest, but
it's hopefully better than endlessly rebasing a patchset that is not
receiving any feedback from the community.)

Once you think you've built up some community support and the patchset
is ready for review, you (or any interested party) can resurrect the
patch entry by visiting

    https://commitfest.postgresql.org/38/3181/

and changing the status to "Needs Review", and then changing the
status again to "Move to next CF". (Don't forget the second step;
hopefully we will have streamlined this in the near future!)

Thanks,
--Jacob

[1] https://postgr.es/m/86140760-8ba5-6f3a-3e6e-5ca6c060bd24@timescale.com