On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > >> My dim recollection is that Tom and I and maybe some others did >> tests on a bunch of platforms at the time we introduced the >> protocol to make sure it did work this way, since it's crucial to >> making sure we don't get interleaved log lines. > > Testing is good; I like testing. But I've seen people code to > implementation details in such a way that things worked fine until > the next release of a product, when the implementation changed. I > was surprised to see Tom, who is normally such a stickler for doing > such things correctly, apparently going the other way this time; but > it turns out that he had noted a guarantee in the API that I'd > missed. Mystery solved. > > Perhaps something in the comments would help people avoid making the > same mistake I did.
Unfortunately, whether Tom's right or not, we still don't have a solution to the compiler warning. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
