Tom Lane wrote: > After struggling with back-patching a GIN bug fix, I wish to offer up the > considered opinion that this was an impressively bad idea. It's inserted > 450 or so pain points for back-patching, which we will have to deal with > for the next five years. Moreover, I do not believe that it will do a > damn thing for ensuring that future calls of BufferGetPage think about > what to do; they'll most likely be copied-and-pasted from nearby calls, > just as people have always done. With luck, the nearby calls will have > the right semantics, but this change won't help very much at all if they > don't.
I disagree. A developer that sees an unadorned BufferGetPage() call doesn't stop to think twice about whether they need to add a snapshot test. Many reviewers will miss the necessary addition also. A developer that sees BufferGetPage(NO_SNAPSHOT_TEST) will at least consider the idea that the flag might be right; if that developer doesn't think about it, some reviewer may notice a new call with the flag and consider the idea that the flag may be wrong. I understand the backpatching pain argument, but my opinion was the contrary of yours even so. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
