Re: v14 mechanical code beautification patches

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: v14 mechanical code beautification patches
Date: 2021-05-06 02:45:01
Message-ID: 4109712.1620269101@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> I dug in the archives and found the thread that prompted you to
> add that bullet item:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/200502021700.j12H05j20872%40candle.pha.pa.us
> which made the point that those were moving targets back in 2005.
> I doubt they still are, so I don't see much point in keeping this
> in the checklist.
> (There may or may not be value in doing a one-time check to see
> if we've missed anything.)

I located the "current" versions of those files in libbind 6.0.
(I put "current" in quotes because the file dates seem to be
2005-2008, so indeed development came to a stop a long time ago.)

They are *very* different from what we have, though. Some of it
is visibly cosmetic, but other parts have been rewritten quite a bit,
so it's hard to tell if the functionality is identical.

In the absence of a reason to think we have bugs that we need to
fix, I'm not sure it's worth analyzing the differences in detail.
I definitely wouldn't just adopt all the diffs blindly.

In any case, that RELEASE_CHANGES item is clearly a dead letter
now, so I'll go remove it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2021-05-06 02:53:21 Re: MaxOffsetNumber for Table AMs
Previous Message David Fetter 2021-05-06 02:42:27 Re: pg_receivewal makes a bad daemon