Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> 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
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2006-05-30 22:38:08|
|Subject: Re: error-free disabling of individual child partition|
|Previous:||From: Martijn van Oosterhout||Date: 2006-05-30 21:16:09|
|Subject: Re: anoncvs still slow|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: uol||Date: 2006-05-30 22:54:19|
|Subject: Re: PL/PGSQL: Dynamic Record Introspection|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-05-30 20:22:24|
|Subject: Re: [PATCH] Round 2: Magic block for modules |