Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures

From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures
Date: 2008-08-19 19:47:29
Message-ID: 20080819194729.GS9771@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 02:47:13PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:

> Whether (and how far) to backpatch has always been a best-judgment call
> in the past, and we've gotten along fine with that. I think having a
> formal policy is just likely to lead to even more complaints:

I completely agree with this. If you formalise the back-patch policy,
then it will be necessary to invent classifications for bug severity
to determine whether to back patch. This will inevitably lead to some
sort of false objectivity measure, where bugs get a "severity number"
that actually just means "we have already decided to back-patch".

A

--
Andrew Sullivan
ajs(at)commandprompt(dot)com
+1 503 667 4564 x104
http://www.commandprompt.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua Drake 2008-08-19 19:48:41 Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2008-08-19 19:43:11 Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf