Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots

From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
Cc: robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, sk(at)zsrv(dot)org, michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Restricting maximum keep segments by repslots
Date: 2018-01-16 09:04:51
Message-ID: 20180116.180451.243269920.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I'm digressing...

At Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:45:34 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote in <26718(dot)1516070734(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Since the "Stripping trailing CRs from patch" message is totally
> > harmless, I'm not sure why you should need to devote any effort to
> > avoiding it. Anyone who gets it should just ignore it.

I know that and totally agree to Robert but still I wonder why
(and am annoyed by) I sometimes receive such complain or even an
accusation that I sent an out-of-the-convention patch and I was
afraid that it is not actually common.

For thie reason I roughly counted up CT/CTE's that people here is
using for patches in my mail box this time and got the following
numbers. (Counted on attachments with a name "*.patch/diff".)

Rank : Freq : CT/CTE
1: 3308: application/octet-stream:base64
2: 1642: text/x-patch;charset=us-ascii:base64
3: 1286: text/x-diff;charset=us-ascii:7bit
* 4: 997: text/x-patch;charset=us-ascii:7bit
5: 497: text/x-diff;charset=us-ascii:base64
6: 406: text/x-diff:quoted-printable
7: 403: text/plain;charset=us-ascii:7bit
8: 389: text/x-diff:base64
9: 321: application/x-gzip:base64
10: 281: text/plain;charset=us-ascii:base64
<snip>
Total: attachments=11461 / mails=158121

The most common setting is application/octet-stream:base64 but
text/x-patch;charset=us-ascii:7bit is also one of ... the majority?

I'm convinced that my original setting is not so problematic so I
reverted it.

> Not sure, but that might be another situation in which "patch"
> works and "git apply" doesn't. (Feeling too lazy to test it...)

I was also afraid of that as I wrote upthread but it seems also a
needless fear.

regards,

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Prabhat Sahu 2018-01-16 09:17:32 Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)
Previous Message Jeevan Chalke 2018-01-16 08:56:03 Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping