On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 02:11:20PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Kenneth Marshall escribió: > > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:42:39PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > > I think having the HASHVALUE_ONLY define is not a good idea -- > > > it just makes the patch harder to read. I suggest just removing > > > the old code and putting the new code in place. (That's why we > > > have revision control.) > > > > > One thing it helps is building an old version and a new version > > for comparative testing. Otherwise, you could end up with an > > apples-to- oranges comparison. I certainly think that the final > > patch should not have it, but it is useful now for testing and > > comparisons. > > For this purpose I think it would be easier to have a separate tree > with the patch, and one without it.
Here's one tree. Anyone can get an initial copy as follows: git clone http://git.postgresql.org/git/~davidfetter/hash/.git Xiao Meng, if you let me know where your git repo is, say by cloning onto a machine I can see from the internet and applying your patches to it, I can pull and let others see it :) Yes, I know it's a little cumbersome, but we'll get something slicker as we figure out what "slicker" really should mean. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
