Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 08:21:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> I'm pretty sure we had agreed that magic blocks should be > > required; > > >> otherwise this check will accomplish little. > > > > > Sure, I just didn't want to break every module in one > > weekend. I was > > > thinking of adding it with LOG level now, send a message on > > -announce > > > saying that at the beginning of the 8.2 freeze it will be an ERROR. > > > Give people time to react. > > > > Now that the magic-block patch is in, we need to revisit this > > bit of the discussion. I'm for making lack of a magic block > > an ERROR immediately. > > I don't see the point of waiting; in fact, if we wait till > > freeze we'll just make the breakage more concentrated. At > > the very least it ought to be a WARNING immediately, because > > a LOG message is just not visible enough. > > > > Comments? > > If it's eventually going to be an ERROR, it's better to make it ERROR > from the start. > > People working off cvs snapshot will (hopefully) expect temporary > breakage during the development period. In general, you'd expect less > breakage the closer to release you are.
I say make it an ERROR and we can relax it later. If you make it a warning, we might not hear about it. -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
