| From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz, tatsuro(dot)yamada(dot)tf(at)nttcom(dot)co(dot)jp, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Duplicate history file? |
| Date: | 2021-06-16 01:11:22 |
| Message-ID: | 20210616011122.lr225n2gqqlkrrtz@nol |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 02:28:04PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> * Julien Rouhaud (rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 11:33:10AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> >
> > The fact that this is such a complex problem is the very reason why we should
> > spend a lot of energy documenting the various requirements. Otherwise, how
> > could anyone implement a valid program for that and how could anyone validate
> > that a solution claiming to do its job actually does its job?
>
> Reading the code.
Oh, if it's as simple as that then surely documenting the various requirements
won't be an issue.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2021-06-16 01:15:17 | Re: disfavoring unparameterized nested loops |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-06-16 00:39:57 | Re: Different compression methods for FPI |