Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Personally, I am willing to yank it all now. I think we understand the
> code base well enough that someone who knows the code can go through and
> quickly identify the 90% of NOT_USED that is just junk and remove it.
> Tom Lane, you are the only person I know who can do this. Sorry.
Moi? There are parts I understand well, and other parts not.
In any case I don't have time now to make such a sweep.
What I'd suggest is that we all just modify our operating procedures
a little. Any time you have studied a bit of code long enough to be
pretty sure you understand how it works, feel free to cut out any
NOT_USED segments that you can't see any prospect of wanting again.
I've already been applying this philosophy to some extent in modules
that I've worked on, but I will try to do it on a regular basis from
here on. If we all do it, that should eliminate the useless stuff
Next question is what to do about the _deadcode subdirectories.
For the most part I don't even know what's in 'em ... do you?
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Don Baccus||Date: 2000-02-01 04:59:43|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Case-folding bogosity in new psql |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-02-01 03:43:24|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] reduce pg_hba.conf restrictions ... |