On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:56 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2019-Sep-26, Mike Palmiotto wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 9:49 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > 0002 seems way too large (and it doesn't currently apply). Is there > > > something we can do to make it more manageable? > > > > Initially we were thinking of submitting one patch for the > > centralization work and then separate patches per backend type. We > > opted not to go that route, mainly because of the number of resulting > > patches (there were somewhere around 13 total, as I remember). If it > > makes sense, we can go ahead and split the patches up in that fashion > > after rebasing. > > Well, I think it would be easier to manage as split patches, yeah. > I think it'd be infrastructure that needs to be carefully reviewed, > while the other ones are mostly boilerplate. If I were the committer > for it, I would push that initial patch first immediately followed by > conversion of some process that's heavily exercised in buildfarm, wait > until lack of trouble is evident, followed by a trickle of pushes to > adapt the other processes.
Thanks for the feedback! I've rebased and tested on my F30 box with and without EXEC_BACKEND. Just working on splitting out the patches now and will post the new patchset as soon as that's done (hopefully sometime tomorrow). -- Mike Palmiotto https://crunchydata.com
