Re: [HACKERS] Refactor StartupXLOG?

2016-09-24 Thread Michael Paquier
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

Re: [HACKERS] Refactor StartupXLOG?

2016-09-24 Thread Thomas Munro
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

Re: [HACKERS] Refactor StartupXLOG?

2016-09-24 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
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

[HACKERS] Refactor StartupXLOG?

2016-09-23 Thread Thomas Munro
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