On Sat, 19 Nov 2016 12:58:47 +0100
Gilles Darold <gilles.darold@dalibo.com> wrote:
> All patches you've submitted on tha v13 patch have been applied and
> are present in attached v14 of the patch. I have not included the
> patches about GUC changes because I'm not sure that adding a new file
> (include/utils/guc_values.h) just for that will be accepted or that it
> will not require a more global work to add other GUC values. However
> perhaps this patch can be submitted separately if the decision is not
> taken here.
Understood. I've a couple of other patches that do
a little cleanup on master that I'd also like to submit
along with your patch. This on the theory that
the maintainers will be looking at this code anyway
because your patch touches it. All this can be submitted
for their review at once. My approach is to be minimally invasive on
a per-patch basis (i.e. your patch) but add small patches
that make existing code "better" without touching
functionality. (Deleting unnecessary statements, etc.)
The overall goal being a better code base.
I've found what I think is another bug, where a
long-stale filename could be written to current_logfiles.
I've coded a patch.
I also have a patch to ensure that current_logfiles never
"skips" a logfile due to ENFILE or ENFILE in
logfile_writename() (only).
I'm done with all the coding and need to refactor on top
of your v14 patch and on top of each other. I'll send all
patches back to you for your review. (Unless you've
some objection.) I may not get to this until Monday morning.
I haven't throughly tested the ENFILE/ENFILE patch.
I was planning on doing that while you looked over the
code.
Regards,
Karl <kop@meme.com>
Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward." -- Robert A. Heinlein