| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why don't we have a small reserved OID range for patch revisions? |
| Date: | 2019-03-01 23:05:05 |
| Message-ID: | 1872.1551481505@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 11:56 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> It would be neat if there were a tool you could run to somehow tell
>> you whether catversion needs to be changed for a given patch.
> That seems infeasible because of stored rules. A lot of things bleed
> into that. We could certainly do better at documenting this on the
> "committing checklist" page, though.
A first approximation to that is "did you touch readfuncs.c", though
that rule will give a false positive if you only changed Plan nodes.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-03-01 23:13:56 | Re: NOT IN subquery optimization |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2019-03-01 23:03:21 | Re: Online verification of checksums |