| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-core <pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [CORE] postpone next week's release |
| Date: | 2015-05-31 15:55:44 |
| Message-ID: | 32433.1433087744@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> FYI, I realize that one additional thing that has discouraged code
>> reorganization is the additional backpatch overhead. I think we now
>> need to accept that our reorganization-adverse approach might have cost
>> us some reliability, and that reorganization is going to add work to
>> backpatching.
> Actually, code reorganization in HEAD might cause backpatching to be
> more buggy, reducing reliability --- obviously we need to have a
> discussion about that.
Commit 6b700301c36e380eb4972ab72c0e914cae60f9fd is a recent real example.
Not that that should dissuade us from ever doing any reorganizations,
but it's foolish to discount back-patching costs.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2015-05-31 16:09:16 | Re: [CORE] postpone next week's release |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2015-05-31 15:49:02 | Re: [CORE] postpone next week's release |