| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: let's not complain about harmless patch-apply failures |
| Date: | 2018-01-16 23:54:26 |
| Message-ID: | 3936.1516146866@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> The parallel CREATE INDEX patch is something that I've worked on
> (fairly inconsistently) for 2 years now. I remember two occasions in
> which somebody else changed a function signature for functions that my
> code called, and without that causing even a compiler warning after
> rebasing on top of these changes (e.g., changing an int argument to a
> bool argument). On both occasions, this led to a real bug in a version
> of the patch that was posted to the list.
FWIW, I think that that represents bad practice in those changes,
precisely because of the hazard it poses for uncommitted patches.
If you're changing a function signature, it's usually not that hard
to make sure that un-updated code will produce a failure or warning,
and you should generally do so IMO.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-01-17 00:13:57 | Re: let's not complain about harmless patch-apply failures |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-01-16 23:46:10 | Re: let's not complain about harmless patch-apply failures |