| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: buildfarm animals and 'snapshot too old' |
| Date: | 2014-05-20 04:46:53 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZnefFO+BxnfVNovEkOfaEXqrTRD4BTz_8XsMEcDAWoNQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> Well, the original code was put in for a reason, presumably that we were
> getting some stale data and wanted to exclude it. So I'm unwilling to throw
> it out altogether. If someone can propose a reasonable sanity check then I'm
> prepared to implement it.
While I generally agree that long-established code shouldn't be
changed for light or transient causes, I have to admit I'm pretty
skeptical about this particular instance. I can't think of any
particularly compelling reason why it's BAD for an old result to show
up. We now show the commit ID on the main page, so if you see 512abc4
in the middle of a bunch of ef9ab5f's, you'll notice. And if you
don't notice, so what?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rohit Goyal | 2014-05-20 07:15:32 | Re: Error in running DBT2 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-05-20 02:24:07 | Re: buildfarm animals and 'snapshot too old' |