Hi, On 2022-02-17 14:23:51 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 10:33 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2022-02-16 19:43:09 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > > It makes the code in vacuumlazy.c much cleaner. In fact, that's how commit > > > 44fa8488 started off -- purely as refactoring work. > > > > The problem is that it didn't end up as that. You combined refactoring with > > substantial changes. And described it large and generic terms. > > What substantial changes are you referring to? The one thing that did > change was the commit message, which framed everything in terms of the > later work. It really is true that the patch that I committed was > essentially the same patch as the one posted on November 22, in both > style and substance. Before I really even began to think about the > freezing stuff. This is a matter of record.
Here I was referencing your description of how the patch started ("purely as refactoring work"), and then evolved into something not just a refactoring. > > It's a contentious thread. I asked for things to be split. In that context, > > it's imo common curtesy for non-trivial patches to write something like > > I didn't see a way to usefully split up 0001 any further (having > already split it up into 0001 and 0002). That's not particularly > obvious, but it's true. If helpful I can give a go at showing how I think it could be split up. Or perhaps more productively, do that on a not-yet-committed larger patch. Greetings, Andres Freund