| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring |
| Date: | 2019-01-17 18:08:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20190117180824.ssrhupmcw2jf6mjn@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-10-09 16:04:35 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> More generally, I'd like this material to be code comments. It's the
> kind of stuff that gets outdated before long if it's kept separate.
I'm not sure I buy this here - we don't have (but perhaps should?) a
convenient location for an overview comment around this. There's no
"signal_handling.c" where it'd clearly belong - given the lack of a
clear point to look to, I don't think a README.SIGNAL_HANDLING would get
out-of-date more quickly than code comments in mildly related place (say
postgres.c or miscinit.c) would get out of date at a different pace.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2019-01-17 18:20:30 | Re: ArchiveEntry optional arguments refactoring |
| Previous Message | Chris Travers | 2019-01-17 17:57:56 | Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring |