Re: Online enabling of checksums
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Online enabling of checksums |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEwF2nWBWiQ=QfFf4-gQnAzF8AWaF+vgr6hncjXpUODffQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Online enabling of checksums (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Online enabling of checksums
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 11:09 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>>At least this patch was posted on the lists before commit, unlike many
>>others from many different people. And AFAIK there has never been such
>>a
>>rule.
The rules cannot possibly anticipate every situation or subtlety. The
letter of the law is a slightly distinct thing to its spirit.
> The more debatable a decision is, the more important it IMO becomes to give people a chance to object. Don't think there needs to be a hard rule to always announce an intent to commit.
+1
Andres' remarks need to be seen in the context of the past couple of
weeks, and in the context of this being a relatively high risk patch
that was submitted quite late in the cycle.
I would argue that this is a pretty isolated patch. A large majority of the code is completely isolated from the rest. And I would argue that this reduces the risk of the patch substantially.
(And yes, we've noticed it's failing in isolationtester on a number of boxes -- Daniel is currently investigating)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: