Re: A minor adjustment to get_cheapest_path_for_pathkeys

On Wed, Sep 6, 2023 at 2:45 AM Andy Fan <zhihui.fan1213@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess the *valuable* sometimes means the effort we pay is greater
> than the benefit we get,  As for this patch,  the benefit is not huge (it
> is possible the compiler already does that). and the most effort we pay
> should be committer's attention, who needs to grab the patch, write the
> correct  commit and credit to the author and push it.  I'm not sure if
> Aleksander is worrying that this kind of patch will grab too much of
> the committer's attention and I do see there are lots of patches like
> this.

Very fair point. However, as you said in your follow-up email, Richard
Guo has done a lot of good work in this area already, so it makes
sense to pay a bit more attention to his suggestions.

> In my opinion,  we can do some stuff to improve the ROI.
> -  Authors should do as much as possible,  mainly a better commit
> message.  As for this patch, the commit message is " Adjustment
> to get_cheapest_path_for_pathkeys"  which I don't think matches
> our culture.

I agree. I don't think the patch submitter is obliged to try to write
a good commit message, but people who contribute regularly or are
posting large stacks of complex patches are probably well-advised to
try. It makes life easier for committers and even for reviewers trying
to make sense of their patches.

> Actually I also want to know what "Ready for Committer" is designed for,
> and when/who can mark a patch as "Ready for Committer" ?

Any reviewer who feels that this is the case. It's not binding on
anyone; it's an opinion.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com