Re: Window Functions: patch for CommitFest:Nov.
От | Hitoshi Harada |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Window Functions: patch for CommitFest:Nov. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | e08cc0400810311053p4c0631kae025b62729d790b@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Window Functions: patch for CommitFest:Nov. (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2008/11/1 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> "Hitoshi Harada" <umi.tanuki@gmail.com> writes: >>> 2008/11/1 David Fetter <david@fetter.org>: >>> I've ever sent a patch over 100k and failed. Actually how much is the >>> limitation of the patch size? And if the patch is too huge, is it >>> better to split the patch than send an external link? > > I'd suggest splitting the patch into sections if necessary. A patch > that's over 100K zipped is likely to be unmanageable from a reviewing > standpoint anyhow --- it would be better to think about how to factor > it into separate patches ... OK, but a half of my patch is based on pg_proc.h so reviewing is not so complexing as its size. > But in any case, Alvaro is correct to complain about external links. > We want the patch to be in the list archives. Agree. So I suppose the limitation can be bigger up to 500k or so. Nowadays, network and mail clients wouldn't be annoyed with that size. But I will follow the current rule. Next time, I'll try split patch. -- Hitoshi Harada
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: