List:Commits« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Marc Alff Date:May 11 2009 3:55pm
Subject:Re: Review of WL#2360 Performance Schema (large)
View as plain text  
Hi Guilhem

Guilhem Bichot wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> This is a snapshot of my unfinished review.
> 
> Files which I haven't looked at yet, are not included in this
> email. Even for files included here, I haven't scanned all of them
> entirely and will come back to them.
> 
> I prefixed my comments with "GB", like this:
> GB some_comment
> 

All my comments are prefixed with MA


> Please, when replying, make sure to mark your action for each comment
> (even with a simple "ok"). It's no fun when people delete my comments
> in their reply and I have to investigate what they meant by this
> deletion (acceptance, rejection...). Especially as there are already
> 314 "GB" paragraphs, book-keeping would be difficult ;-)
> 
> My overall opinion is that the patch is nice, it is visible that
> this has been carefully thought through. The documentation is
> impressive.
> 
> I have two families of comments: some about the feature itself, and
> some about its integration with the rest of the Server (with the
> locking subsystem, existing storage engines, or coding style).
> 
> This diff is between 6.0-perf at:
>  2824 Marc Alff 2009-03-20
>       revision-id:marc.alff@stripped
> and the corresponding 6.0-main. I will later finish reviewing that
> diff and review the changes pushed since then.
> 
> As the commented diff is large (almost 1MB, which is the rejection limit
> of commits@lists), and as I didn't find a way for Thunderbird to not
> wrap code lines, I'm sending this attached.
> 

Most of the comments have been implemented already, with several patches
checked in mysql-6.0-perfschema.

I don't want to hold the comments any longer, even when some points have
 not yet been addressed, so see the attached file with all my notes.

To clarify about the remaining points, when a reply contains:
"MA TODO", it does not mean I accept the comment, it just means I need
to investigate/comment/accept and implement it/reject it and explain
why, later.
I left on purpose all the changes on the test suite for later, to
implement all the comments on the code first.

Thanks for the review.

Regards,
-- Marc



Attachment: [application/x-gzip] review_wl2360_partial-reply1.txt.gz
Thread
Review of WL#2360 Performance Schema (large)Guilhem Bichot12 Apr
  • Re: Review of WL#2360 Performance Schema (large)Marc Alff11 May
    • Re: Review of WL#2360 Performance Schema (large)Guilhem Bichot10 Jun
      • Re: Review of WL#2360 Performance Schema (large)Peter Gulutzan11 Jun
        • Re: Review of WL#2360 Performance Schema (large)Guilhem Bichot11 Jun
      • Re: Review of WL#2360 Performance Schema (large), part 3Marc Alff18 Jun
        • Re: Review of WL#2360 Performance Schema (large), part 3Guilhem Bichot18 Jun
          • Re: Review of WL#2360 Performance Schema (large), part 3Marc Alff22 Jul
          • Re: Review of WL#2360 Performance Schema (large), part 3Marc Alff22 Jul
            • Re: Review of WL#2360 Performance Schema (large), part 4Guilhem Bichot28 Jul
              • Re: Review of WL#2360 Performance Schema (large), part 4Marc Alff21 Aug
                • Re: Review of WL#2360 Performance Schema (large), part 4Guilhem Bichot25 Aug
                  • Re: Review of WL#2360 Performance Schema (large), part 4Marc Alff8 Oct
                    • Re: Review of WL#2360 Performance Schema (large), part 4Guilhem Bichot9 Oct