On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 03:09:08PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > I have difficult believing that a change of this type, if implemented > judiciously, is really going to create that much difficulty in > back-patching. I don't do as much back-patching as Tom either (no one > does), but most of the patches I do back-patch can be cherry-picked > all the way back without a problem. Some require adjustment, but even > then this kind of thing is pretty trivial to handle, as it's pretty > obvious what happened when you look through it. The really nasty > problems tend to come from places where the code has been rearranged, > rather than simple A-for-B substitutions. > > I think the thing we need to look at is what percentage of our code > churn is coming from stuff like this, versus what percentage of it is > coming from other factors. If we change 250,000 lines of code per > release cycle and of that this kind of thing accounts for 5,000 lines > of deltas, then IMHO it's not really material. If it accounts for > 50,000 lines of deltas out of the same base, that's probably more than > can really be justified by the benefit we're going to get out of it.
The true/false capitalization patch changes 1.2k lines. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers