On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 9:41 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 12:23 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Having "marked by this operation" twice seems to be redundant. How > > about something like the output below? > > > > visibility map: %u pages set all-visible (%u pages total), %u pages > > set all-frozen (%u pages total) > > For me, the meaning of that isn't clear. > > I think this is the wrong direction, anyway. If someone says "hey, we > should add X to the output" and someone else says "we should add Y > instead," it doesn't follow that the right thing to do is to add both. > I happen to think that the right answer is X, both because X of my > understanding of the purpose of this log message, and also because X > is in the service of Melanie's larger goal and Y is not. But I also > feel like bikeshedding the patch that somebody should have written > instead of reviewing the one they actually wrote is to be avoided. Of > course, sometimes there's no getting around the fact that the person > chose to do something that didn't really make sense, and then it's > reasonable to suggest alternatives. But here, what was actually done > does make sense and is the first choice of some people. What is > proposed can be added now, provided that it actually gets some review, > and the other thing can be added later if someone wants to do the work > and if no problems are discovered, but it isn't Melanie's job to add > data that isn't needed for her project.
Agreed. I think we agreed with what the patches proposed by Melanie do, so let's focus on these patches on this thread. We can add other information later if we need. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
