On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> What would the appetite be for that kind of refactoring work,
> considering the increased burden on committers who have to backpatch
> bug fixes? Is it a project goal to reduce the size of large
> complicated functions like StartupXLOG and he
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 8:24 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 09/24/2016 05:01 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
>>
>> What would the appetite be for that kind of refactoring work,
>> considering the increased burden on committers who have to backpatch
>> bug fixes? Is it a project goal to reduce the siz
On 09/24/2016 05:01 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
What would the appetite be for that kind of refactoring work,
considering the increased burden on committers who have to backpatch
bug fixes? Is it a project goal to reduce the size of large
complicated functions like StartupXLOG and heap_update? It s
Hi hackers
StartupXLOG is 1549 lines of code. Its unwieldy size came up in a
discussion in an IRC channel where some PG hackers lurk and I decided
to see how it might be chopped up into subroutines with a clear
purpose and reasonable size, as an exercise.
I came up with the following on a first
