Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 08:21:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> I'm pretty sure we had agreed that magic blocks should be
> > required;
> > >> otherwise this check will accomplish little.
> > > Sure, I just didn't want to break every module in one
> > weekend. I was
> > > thinking of adding it with LOG level now, send a message on
> > -announce
> > > saying that at the beginning of the 8.2 freeze it will be an ERROR.
> > > Give people time to react.
> > Now that the magic-block patch is in, we need to revisit this
> > bit of the discussion. I'm for making lack of a magic block
> > an ERROR immediately.
> > I don't see the point of waiting; in fact, if we wait till
> > freeze we'll just make the breakage more concentrated. At
> > the very least it ought to be a WARNING immediately, because
> > a LOG message is just not visible enough.
> > Comments?
> If it's eventually going to be an ERROR, it's better to make it ERROR
> from the start.
> People working off cvs snapshot will (hopefully) expect temporary
> breakage during the development period. In general, you'd expect less
> breakage the closer to release you are.
I say make it an ERROR and we can relax it later. If you make it a
warning, we might not hear about it.
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Marko Kreen||Date: 2006-05-31 10:08:41|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] Magic block for modules|
|Previous:||From: Andreas Pflug||Date: 2006-05-31 09:38:05|
|Subject: copy with compression progress n|