| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Reset master xmin when hot_standby_feedback disabled. |
| Date: | 2014-07-15 21:01:03 |
| Message-ID: | 11705.1405458063@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 15 July 2014 19:15, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> While I'm not necessarily objecting to the content of this patch,
>> I do have a problem with the process. Where was the discussion of
>> why this change should be back-patched?
> There was recent discussion of it on-list and a public request to
> backpatch, which I agreed with and acknowledged.
I searched the archives looking for that discussion and couldn't find it;
can you provide a link?
> I kept the commit message deliberately identical to help people, not to confuse.
That's appropriate when you're committing functionally identical patches
into multiple branches at about the same time. In a situation like this,
though, I'd argue that the later commits ought to explicitly reference
the older one ("this is a back-patch of commit NNNNNNN"). As it stands,
it's very hard for anyone looking at the commit logs to make the
connection.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-07-15 21:19:18 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Reset master xmin when hot_standby_feedback disabled. |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2014-07-15 20:03:28 | pgsql: Move check for SSL_get_current_compression to run on mingw |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-07-15 21:11:18 | Re: Allowing NOT IN to use ANTI joins |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-07-15 20:11:12 | Re: Allowing NOT IN to use ANTI joins |