Re: WIP: About CMake v2

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, YUriy Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP: About CMake v2
Date: 2016-11-16 15:40:35
Message-ID: CA+TgmobV80YPttsmAx+w24a0Thrfp9mtg2AC3Q2uSO7qFweF6w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Craig Ringer
> <craig(dot)ringer(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 9 Nov. 2016 06:37, "Yury Zhuravlev" <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>>> This approach I see only in Postgres project and not fully understood.
>>> Can you explain me more what reasons led to this approach?
>>
>> It's predictable. The default has the same result for everyone. I quite like
>> it myself.
>
> +1. Let's tell to the system what we want him to do and not let him
> guess what we'd like to be done or it will get harder to test and
> develop code for all kind of code paths with #ifdef's. That's one step
> away from Skynet.

Exaggerate much?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-11-16 15:46:50 Re: Use of pg_proc.probin is legal?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-11-16 15:35:37 Re: Parallel execution and prepared statements