Re: Rework the way multixact truncations work

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rework the way multixact truncations work
Date: 2015-11-23 19:44:45
Message-ID: CAM3SWZR05S9b19xi=q9RfLaa=2-21em8PAAuo+TL8x9SJJFqgQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm not following along right now - in order to make cleanups the plan is to revert a couple commits and then redo them prettyfied?
>
> Yes, essentially. Given the volume of updates, this seemed neater than
> framing those updates as in-tree incremental development.

I think that's an odd way of representing this work. I tend to
remember roughly when major things were committed even years later. An
outright revert should represent a total back out of the original
commit IMV. Otherwise, a git blame can be quite misleading. I can
imagine questioning my recollection, even when it is accurate, if only
because I don't expect this.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-11-23 20:14:56 Re: problem with msvc linker - cannot build orafce
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2015-11-23 19:25:26 problem with msvc linker - cannot build orafce