On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 12:07 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Dang, me again eh? :-) > > Well, I'm available now and tomorrow to do any further work required. > > Looking back at your original discussion of the bug, > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-06/msg00234.php > I'm wondering why you chose option #3 rather than option #4?
IIRC you rejected #4 here http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-admin/2007-03/msg00237.php I was raising it again 'cos I thought it sensible, and still do. #4 is easy enough to implement, so I worked on #3 so we had a choice. > I still find the proposed patch a bit crufty. Your coding is always neater than mine, so we need not debate my cruftiness. There are two parts to the patch as submitted; IIRC the shorter chunk *may* be cosmetic only - though its too far back for me to recall with precision. The main issue is that we send *back* to the archive a file that we just got from it, which is always wrong. Stopping it from doing that in a direct manner seems much neater to me. #4 solves another problem (mentioned in the thread you quote on Admin), so I want that, but I dislike the circuitous manner in which it solves this problem. We'd need to document carefully to avoid a future bug there. I would prefer #3 and #4 together... -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
