Re: pgsql: pg_upgrade: document possible pg_hba.conf options

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 05:59:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:13:10PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > >> Standard operating procedure everyone follos is that you should post the
> > >> patch to -hackers first, wait a couple of hours for any possible input,
> > >> push the commit, then reply to the original -hackers thread stating you
> > >> have committed it.
> >
> > > I don't think we need that formality with a doc patch. I don't see
> > > others doing that.
> >
> > I've always thought that a "patch applied" followup mail was a waste of
> > time and readers' attention. Anybody who cares about that will know it
> > was applied because they're watching pgsql-committers or the git feed.
>
> I do find the "patch applied" emails helpful when I am reading email
> threads, and I can see the patch was applied. For me, it closes the
> loop, and sometimes the commit message isn't clear about what patch
> thread it closes. In fact, when that "patch applied" message is
> missing, I have to sometimes hunt around to see if we closed that item.

+1. It's also useful if you're later digging into the archives; you can
more easily find the corresponding pgsql-hackers thread if the commit
notice email is there. Otherwise, if the commit is far apart from the
pg-hackers discussion, it's sometimes hard to dig the thread.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services