Re: pgsql: pg_upgrade: document possible pg_hba.conf options

On Jul 11, 2013 11:39 PM, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 05:59:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:13:10PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > >> Standard operating procedure everyone follos is that you should
post the
> > > >> patch to -hackers first, wait a couple of hours for any possible
input,
> > > >> push the commit, then reply to the original -hackers thread
stating you
> > > >> have committed it.
> > >
> > > > I don't think we need that formality with a doc patch. I don't see
> > > > others doing that.
> > >
> > > I've always thought that a "patch applied" followup mail was a waste
of
> > > time and readers' attention. Anybody who cares about that will know
it
> > > was applied because they're watching pgsql-committers or the git feed.
> >
> > I do find the "patch applied" emails helpful when I am reading email
> > threads, and I can see the patch was applied. For me, it closes the
> > loop, and sometimes the commit message isn't clear about what patch
> > thread it closes. In fact, when that "patch applied" message is
> > missing, I have to sometimes hunt around to see if we closed that item.
>
> +1. It's also useful if you're later digging into the archives; you can
> more easily find the corresponding pgsql-hackers thread if the commit
> notice email is there. Otherwise, if the commit is far apart from the
> pg-hackers discussion, it's sometimes hard to dig the thread.

+1. It also makes for a nice way to quickly know if you need not do any
further research or not.

/Magnus