Re: [HACKERS] v6.4.3 ?

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane)
Cc: lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] v6.4.3 ?
Date: 1999-02-09 16:38:19
Message-ID: 199902091638.LAA20421@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> "Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> > Personally, I would choose to post patches, since as you point out we
> > are really focused on v6.5beta. We *still* need a patch convention with
> > a .../patches/ directory shipped with Postgres, and with routines to
> > help create and apply the patches.
>
> The trouble with maintaining a pile of independent patches is that you
> have cross-patch dependencies: patch B fails to apply unless patch A
> was previously installed, or applies but fails to work right, etc etc.
> Worse, an installation reporting a problem might be running a slightly
> different set of patches than anyone else, complicating the diagnosis
> substantially.

My optimizer fix will not affect other patches. If we only have a few
patches, they will not bump into each other.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Wieck 1999-02-09 18:38:10 Re: AW: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-02-09 16:35:20 Re: [HACKERS] samekeys