Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> schrieb:
>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 Ah, yes. I See your point. The not all that good reasoning I had in mind was that that one should be uncontroversial as it seemed to be the only unchecked malloc call in src/bin. So it could be committed independent from the more controversial stuff... Same with the single whitespace removal patch upthread... Andres --- Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
