Re: WAL consistency check facility

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: WAL consistency check facility
Date: 2017-02-15 02:16:09
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> FWIW, my own habit when creating new PG files is generally to write
>> * Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2017, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
>> * Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
>> even if it's "all new" code. The main reason being that it's hardly ever
>> the case that you didn't copy-and-paste some amount of stuff out of a
>> pre-existing file, and trying to sort out how much of what originated
>> exactly when is an unrewarding exercise. Even if it is basically all
>> new code, this feels like giving an appropriate amount of credit to
>> Those Who Went Before Us.
> Right. I tend to do the same, and wonder if we shouldn't make that a
> general practice.

This looks sensible to me. No-brainer rules that make sense are less
things to worry about.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2017-02-15 02:16:36 Re: Missing CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in hash joins
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-02-15 02:08:59 Re: WAL consistency check facility