| From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Joshua Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Asko Oja <ascoja(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Martin Pihlak <martin(dot)pihlak(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures |
| Date: | 2008-08-19 19:32:29 |
| Message-ID: | B9E2A00D-D119-4A3E-AD58-EA037F8F3574@hi-media.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le 19 août 08 à 20:47, Tom Lane a écrit :
> I'm not sure that I *want* a formal written-down backpatch policy.
> Whether (and how far) to backpatch has always been a best-judgment
> call
> in the past, and we've gotten along fine with that. I think having a
> formal policy is just likely to lead to even more complaints: either
> patching or not patching could result in second-guessing by someone
> who feels he can construe the policy to match the result he prefers.
Agreed.
The problem here (at least for me) was to understand why this (yet to
be reviewed) patch is about implementing a new feature and not about
bugfixing an existing one. So we're exactly in the fog around the
informal backpatch policy, and as long as we're able to continue
talking nicely about it, this seems the finest solution :)
Keep up the amazing work, regards,
--
dim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2008-08-19 19:38:07 | Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2008-08-19 19:26:09 | Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures |