| From: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Greg Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Recovery Test Framework |
| Date: | 2009-01-13 01:34:32 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070901121734q44c15610y92f55f92274f5cdc@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I feel no need to encourage people to send huge patches uncompressed ;-)
> gzip normally gets at least 3x or 4x on large diffs. So a limit around
> 250K ought to be enough.
To paraphrase a leading authority on PostgreSQL development, and with
tongue firmly in cheek, there's something to what you say, but
consider that we have pretty much unanimous agreement that 100k is too
small. I think we should try to fix the problem, not just gradually
ratchet up the value until people start complaining in the other
direction. :-)
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg00809.php
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2009-01-13 01:42:24 | Re: Recovery Test Framework |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2009-01-13 01:32:06 | Re: Recovery Test Framework |