I wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> writes:
>> The only hunk I'm having second thoughts about is the following, which
>> makes unexpected stray files break checkpoints:
> Sounds like a pretty bad idea. What's the upside?
Actually, having now read the patch, I don't think there is any
part of 0002 that is a good idea. It's blithely removing the
comments that explain why the existing coding is the way it is,
and not providing a shred of justification for making checkpoints
more brittle.
I have not tried to analyze the error-handling properties of 0001,
but if it's being equally cavalier then it shouldn't be committed
either. Most of this behavior is the result of decades of hard-won
experience; discarding it because it doesn't fit conveniently
into some refactoring plan isn't smart.
regards, tom lane
