Tom Lane <> schrieb:

>Andres Freund <> 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,
>> cleanup, etc. have been in the same patch? They have originated out
>> the same work...
>> Even the splitup in this thread seems to have helped as youve jumped
>> the patches where you could give rather quick input (static
>> relpathbackend(), central Assert definitions), probably without
>> read the xlogreader patch itself...
>No, I agree that global-impact things like this palloc rearrangement
>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

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...


Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to