Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [PATCHES] Magic block for modules

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Magic block for modules
Date: 2006-05-30 22:20:33
Message-ID: 4582.1149027633@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
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
enough.

Comments?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg StarkDate: 2006-05-30 22:38:08
Subject: Re: error-free disabling of individual child partition
Previous:From: Martijn van OosterhoutDate: 2006-05-30 21:16:09
Subject: Re: anoncvs still slow

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: uolDate: 2006-05-30 22:54:19
Subject: Re: PL/PGSQL: Dynamic Record Introspection
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-05-30 20:22:24
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Round 2: Magic block for modules

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group