| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Zhang <david(dot)zhang(at)highgo(dot)ca>, Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Avoid unecessary MemSet call (src/backend/utils/cache/relcache.c) |
| Date: | 2022-08-25 08:38:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20220825083841.mngxviqhymywmmjc@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2022-Aug-24, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I don't follow how this is a backpatching hazard.
It changes code. Any bugfix in the surrounding code would have to fix a
conflict. That is nonzero effort. Is it a huge risk? No, it is very
small risk and a very small cost to fix such a conflict; but my claim is
that this change has zero benefit, therefore we should not incur a
nonzero future effort.
--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"How amazing is that? I call it a night and come back to find that a bug has
been identified and patched while I sleep." (Robert Davidson)
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-sql/2006-03/msg00378.php
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-08-25 08:58:16 | Re: Letter case of "admin option" |
| Previous Message | Alexander Kukushkin | 2022-08-25 08:34:40 | Re: pg_rewind WAL segments deletion pitfall |