2008/11/1 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "Hitoshi Harada" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> 2008/11/1 David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> I've ever sent a patch over 100k and failed. Actually how much is the >>> limitation of the patch size? And if the patch is too huge, is it >>> better to split the patch than send an external link? > > I'd suggest splitting the patch into sections if necessary. A patch > that's over 100K zipped is likely to be unmanageable from a reviewing > standpoint anyhow --- it would be better to think about how to factor > it into separate patches ...
OK, but a half of my patch is based on pg_proc.h so reviewing is not so complexing as its size. > But in any case, Alvaro is correct to complain about external links. > We want the patch to be in the list archives. Agree. So I suppose the limitation can be bigger up to 500k or so. Nowadays, network and mail clients wouldn't be annoyed with that size. But I will follow the current rule. Next time, I'll try split patch. -- Hitoshi Harada -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
