Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> schrieb:
>Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> On 2013-01-09 11:27:46 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I'd prefer posting a single message with the discussion and the
>>> patch(es). If you think it's helpful to split a patch into separate
>>> parts for reviewing, add multiple attachments. But my experience is
>>> that such separation isn't nearly as useful as you seem to think.
>
>> Well, would it have been better if xlog reading, ilist, binaryheap,
>this
>> cleanup, etc. have been in the same patch? They have originated out
>of
>> the same work...
>> Even the splitup in this thread seems to have helped as youve jumped
>on
>> the patches where you could give rather quick input (static
>> relpathbackend(), central Assert definitions), probably without
>having
>> read the xlogreader patch itself...
>
>No, I agree that global-impact things like this palloc rearrangement
>are
>much better proposed and debated separately than as part of something
>like xlogreader. What I was reacting to was the specific patch set
>associated with this thread. I don't see the point of breaking out a
>two-line sub-patch such as you did in
>http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1357730830-25999-3-git-send-email-andres@2ndquadrant.com
Ah, yes. I See your point. The not all that good reasoning I had in mind was that that one should be uncontroversial as
itseemed to be the only unchecked malloc call in src/bin. So it could be committed independent from the more
controversialstuff... Same with the single whitespace removal patch upthread...
Andres
---
Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.