Re: [PATCH 1/2] Provide a common malloc wrappers and palloc et al. emulation for frontend'ish environs

On 2013-01-09 11:27:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> > On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >> On 2013-01-09 13:34:12 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>> Am I the only one who finds this way of posting patches really annoying?
>
> >> Well, I unsurprisingly don't ;)
>
> > Yeah, that's not surprising :)
>
> I'm with Magnus. This is seriously annoying, especially when the
> "discussion" thread has a title not closely related to the "patch"
> emails. (It doesn't help any that the list server doesn't manage to
> deliver the emails in order, at least not to me --- more often than
> not, they're spread out over a few minutes and interleaved with other
> messages.)

Ok, most seem to have a clear preference, so I won't do so anymore.

> I also don't find the argument that the commit messages are a substitute
> for patch descriptions to be worth anything. Commit messages are, or
> should be, for a different audience: they are for whoever writes the
> release notes, or for historical purposes when someone is looking for
> "which patches touched a particular area?". That's not the same as
> explaining/justifying the patch for review purposes. Reviewers want
> a lot more depth than is appropriate in a commit message.

Aggreed that they have different audiences.

> (TBH, I rarely use any submitter's proposed commit message anyway, but
> that's just me.)

I noticed ;)
>
> I'd prefer posting a single message with the discussion and the
> patch(es). If you think it's helpful to split a patch into separate
> parts for reviewing, add multiple attachments. But my experience is
> that such separation isn't nearly as useful as you seem to think.

Well, would it have been better if xlog reading, ilist, binaryheap, this
cleanup, etc. have been in the same patch? They have originated out of
the same work...
Even the splitup in this thread seems to have helped as youve jumped on
the patches where you could give rather quick input (static
relpathbackend(), central Assert definitions), probably without having
read the xlogreader patch itself...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services