| From: | "Hitoshi Harada" <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Window Functions: patch for CommitFest:Nov. |
| Date: | 2008-10-31 17:53:47 |
| Message-ID: | e08cc0400810311053p4c0631kae025b62729d790b@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2008/11/1 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> "Hitoshi Harada" <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> 2008/11/1 David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>:
>>> I've ever sent a patch over 100k and failed. Actually how much is the
>>> limitation of the patch size? And if the patch is too huge, is it
>>> better to split the patch than send an external link?
>
> I'd suggest splitting the patch into sections if necessary. A patch
> that's over 100K zipped is likely to be unmanageable from a reviewing
> standpoint anyhow --- it would be better to think about how to factor
> it into separate patches ...
OK, but a half of my patch is based on pg_proc.h so reviewing is not
so complexing as its size.
> But in any case, Alvaro is correct to complain about external links.
> We want the patch to be in the list archives.
Agree. So I suppose the limitation can be bigger up to 500k or so.
Nowadays, network and mail clients wouldn't be annoyed with that size.
But I will follow the current rule. Next time, I'll try split patch.
--
Hitoshi Harada
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Emmanuel Cecchet | 2008-10-31 18:42:00 | Re: Fwd: [PATCHES] Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version 1 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-10-31 17:43:11 | Re: Window Functions: patch for CommitFest:Nov. |