Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 2013-01-09 11:27:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'd prefer posting a single message with the discussion and the >> patch(es). If you think it's helpful to split a patch into separate >> parts for reviewing, add multiple attachments. But my experience is >> that such separation isn't nearly as useful as you seem to think.
> Well, would it have been better if xlog reading, ilist, binaryheap, this > cleanup, etc. have been in the same patch? They have originated out of > the same work... > Even the splitup in this thread seems to have helped as youve jumped on > the patches where you could give rather quick input (static > relpathbackend(), central Assert definitions), probably without having > read the xlogreader patch itself... No, I agree that global-impact things like this palloc rearrangement are much better proposed and debated separately than as part of something like xlogreader. What I was reacting to was the specific patch set associated with this thread. I don't see the point of breaking out a two-line sub-patch such as you did in http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1357730830-25999-3-git-send-email-and...@2ndquadrant.com regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
