On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 12:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Dang, me again eh? :-)
> > Well, I'm available now and tomorrow to do any further work required.
> Looking back at your original discussion of the bug,
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg00234.php
> I'm wondering why you chose option #3 rather than option #4?

IIRC you rejected #4 here
I was raising it again 'cos I thought it sensible, and still do.

#4 is easy enough to implement, so I worked on #3 so we had a choice.

> I still find the proposed patch a bit crufty.

Your coding is always neater than mine, so we need not debate my
cruftiness. There are two parts to the patch as submitted; IIRC the
shorter chunk *may* be cosmetic only - though its too far back for me to
recall with precision.

The main issue is that we send *back* to the archive a file that we just
got from it, which is always wrong. Stopping it from doing that in a
direct manner seems much neater to me. #4 solves another problem
(mentioned in the thread you quote on Admin), so I want that, but I
dislike the circuitous manner in which it solves this problem. We'd need
to document carefully to avoid a future bug there.

I would prefer #3 and #4 together...

  Simon Riggs
  2ndQuadrant  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
       subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to