| From: | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Splitting up guc.c |
| Date: | 2022-09-12 20:12:03 |
| Message-ID: | 87v8psl5d8.fsf@wibble.ilmari.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> I think this is localized enough that asking people to manually resolve a
>> conflict around adding a GUC entry wouldn't be asking for that much. And I
>> think plenty changes might be automatically resolvable, despite the rename.
>
> I wonder whether git will be able to figure out that this is mostly a
> code move. I would expect so for a straight file rename, but will that
> work when we're splitting the file 3 ways?
Git can detect more complicated code movement (see the `--color-moved`
option to `git diff`), but I'm not sure it's clever enough to realise
that a change modifying a block of code that was moved in the meanwhile
should be applied at the new destination.
> regards, tom lane
- ilmari
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dmitry Astapov | 2022-09-12 20:14:06 | Estimating bloat for very large tables: what is the state of art? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-09-12 20:07:19 | Re: Can we avoid chdir'ing in resolve_symlinks() ? |