| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: new heapcheck contrib module |
| Date: | 2020-06-30 21:55:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20200630215552.GA21610@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-Jun-30, Mark Dilger wrote:
> I'm guessing that hardening the backend would be a separate patch? Or
> did you want that as part of this one?
Lately, to me the foremost criterion to determine what is a separate
patch and what isn't is the way the commit message is structured. If it
looks too much like a bullet list of unrelated things, that suggests
that the commit should be split into one commit per bullet point; of
course, there are counterexamples. But when I have a commit message
that says "I do A, and I also do B because I need it for A", then it
makes more sense to do B first standalone and then A on top. OTOH if
two things are done because they're heavily intermixed (e.g. commit
850196b610d2, bullet points galore), that suggests that one commit is a
decent approach.
Just my opinion, of course.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2020-06-30 22:13:30 | Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2020-06-30 21:47:24 | Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators? |