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
regards, tom lane