From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bootstrap DATA is a pita |
Date: | 2015-03-04 15:25:58 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaZ9Cr6=pKQvdgzyxe89vvbsOx2tvqpFsen+017-pwifw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> Is it necessarily an all or nothing deal?
>
> Taking a previous example, we could have something like:
>
> {
> oid => 2249, oiddefine => 'CSTRINGOID', typname => 'cstring',
> typlen => -2, typbyval => 1,
> ...
> }
>
> which would allow us to fit within a reasonable edit window (for my normal
> window and font that's around 180 characters) and still reduce the number of
> lines.
>
> I'm not wedded to it, but it's a thought.
Another advantage of this is that it would probably make git less
likely to fumble a rebase. If there are lots of places in the file
where we have the same 10 lines in a row with occasional variations,
rebasing a patch could easily pick the the wrong place to reapply the
hunk. I would personally consider a substantial increase in the rate
of such occurrences as being a cure far, far worse than the disease.
If you keep the entry for each function on just a couple of lines the
chances of this happening are greatly reduced, because you're much
likely to get a false match to surrounding context.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-03-04 15:32:19 | Re: Bootstrap DATA is a pita |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-03-04 15:17:44 | Re: Bootstrap DATA is a pita |