| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "an SQL" vs. "a SQL" |
| Date: | 2021-06-10 15:00:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvpy6MGhUEBoPYQGKzXzGxRzf6aKenndtfbCKG=7tsV1Lg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 at 02:53, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Indeed. I think this is entirely pointless; there's zero hope that
> any consistency you might establish right now will persist very long.
> The largest effect of this proposed patch will be to create
> back-patching headaches.
hmm. Yet we do have other standards which we do manage to maintain.
I did limit the scope to just the docs and error messages. My thoughts
were that someone fudging a backpatch on the docs seems less likely to
cause a nuclear meltdown than someone doing the same in .c code.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2021-06-10 15:20:47 | Re: pg14b1 stuck in lazy_scan_prune/heap_page_prune of pg_statistic |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-10 14:53:26 | Re: "an SQL" vs. "a SQL" |