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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Emmanuel Cecchet||Date: 2008-10-31 18:42:00|
|Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCHES] Auto Partitioning Patch - WIP version
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-10-31 17:43:11|
|Subject: Re: Window Functions: patch for CommitFest:Nov. |