On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> With a minimal maintenance effort we can be careful enough. I think
> that a comment for example in pgstat.c about the usage uniqueness
> would be an adapted answer.
By the way, let's discuss that on a new
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think generating whatever we can from a single authoritative file
>> is indeed a good idea.
>
> Yay.
Indeed.
>> But I had the impression that people also wanted to enforce a rule
>> about
Tom Lane wrote:
> I think generating whatever we can from a single authoritative file
> is indeed a good idea.
Yay.
> But I had the impression that people also wanted to enforce a rule
> about "only one use of each wait event name", which'd require a
> checker script, no? (I'm not really
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> This thread is surprising. If we generate the few lines of code being
> in trouble, we don't need any checker script, so I don't see why we'd go
> the route of the checker script instead.
I think generating whatever we can from a single
This thread is surprising. If we generate the few lines of code being
in trouble, we don't need any checker script, so I don't see why we'd go
the route of the checker script instead.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttps://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA,
On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 10:56:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Thomas Munro writes:
> >>> As for whether hypothetical check scripts would ever be
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Thomas Munro writes:
>>> As for whether hypothetical check scripts would ever be run, I was
>>> thinking we should stick them under some make
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro writes:
>> As for whether hypothetical check scripts would ever be run, I was
>> thinking we should stick them under some make target that developers
>> run all the time anyway --
Thomas Munro writes:
> As for whether hypothetical check scripts would ever be run, I was
> thinking we should stick them under some make target that developers
> run all the time anyway -- perhaps "check". Shouldn't we catch simple
> mechanically detectable
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 6:42 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>>> All of the above seem like good candidates for a checker script in
>>> src/tools/check_XXX.pl, a bit like the others I've
On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 11:35 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Thread moved to -hackers.
>
> Thomas Munro wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 7:39 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>
>> > While at it, fix numerous other problems in the vicinity:
>
>> All of
11 matches
Mail list logo