Re: [HACKERS] WAL consistency check facility
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] WAL consistency check facility |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYAb_syaC4i_N5_MwTaR5DtMez_UM0Ug8=tW3RNsbjdPA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] WAL consistency check facility (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] WAL consistency check facility
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Michael Paquier >> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Just for curiosity: does the moment when the code has been written or >>> committed counts? It's no big deal seeing how liberal the Postgres >>> license is, but this makes me wonder... > >> IANAL, but I think if you ask one, he or she will tell you that what >> matters is the date the work was created. In the case of code, that >> means when the code was written. > > FWIW, my own habit when creating new PG files is generally to write > > * Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2017, PostgreSQL Global Development Group > * Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California > > even if it's "all new" code. The main reason being that it's hardly ever > the case that you didn't copy-and-paste some amount of stuff out of a > pre-existing file, and trying to sort out how much of what originated > exactly when is an unrewarding exercise. Even if it is basically all > new code, this feels like giving an appropriate amount of credit to > Those Who Went Before Us. Right. I tend to do the same, and wonder if we shouldn't make that a general practice. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: