Re: vacuum_truncate configuration parameter and isset_offset
| От | David G. Johnston |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: vacuum_truncate configuration parameter and isset_offset |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAKFQuwYM+o=RRB-H4FwEMwscLU41=AmzVur_JS1rm0Y_UF6_sQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: vacuum_truncate configuration parameter and isset_offset (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: vacuum_truncate configuration parameter and isset_offset
Re: vacuum_truncate configuration parameter and isset_offset |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 7:42 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 10:17 AM David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> wrote:
> The argument being made is that the enum patch adheres to established practices; and when adding new code that new code is encouraged to adhere to how existing code is written. A vote to keep to such guidelines seems reasonable and sufficient; and can outweigh quite a bit of deficiency such existing code may have relative to the new proposal. The burden is on the new code to justify why it should violate established conventions.
I kind of agree with that, but:
1. We're talking about a minor deviation resulting in a very small
amount of additional code. It's entirely unclear to me why anyone
thinks this is a big deal either way, even if one accepts that the
patch is "wrong", which I don't.
I'm willing to say "I don't know why this is so very important to Nikolay, but I trust him that it is, and since my opinion isn't that strong and this isn't a big deal, so I will accommodate the person screaming that adding this will make their life miserable in a real way." Maybe others need more evidence of what that misery looks like?
David J.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: