On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 4:18 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > What substantial changes are you referring to? The one thing that did
> > change was the commit message, which framed everything in terms of the
> > later work. It really is true that the patch that I committed was
> > essentially the same p
Hi,
On 2022-02-17 14:23:51 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 10:33 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2022-02-16 19:43:09 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > > It makes the code in vacuumlazy.c much cleaner. In fact, that's how commit
> > > 44fa8488 started off -- purely as refact
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 10:33 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-02-16 19:43:09 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > It makes the code in vacuumlazy.c much cleaner. In fact, that's how commit
> > 44fa8488 started off -- purely as refactoring work.
>
> The problem is that it didn't end up as that. You
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 1:36 PM Robert Haas wrote:
> > It's not that simple. As I said in the fix-up commit message, and in
> > the opening email to this thread, it basically isn't a new behavior at
> > all. It would be much more accurate to describe it as a behavior that
> > originated with commi
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 4:10 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > I would say it differently: I think the commit message does a poor job
> > describing what the commit actually does. For example, it says nothing
> > about changing VACUUM to always scan the last page of every heap
> > relation. This whole
On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 6:17 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> Let's back up a minute and talk about the commit of $SUBJECT. The
> commit message contains a Discussion link to this thread. This thread,
> at the time you put that link in there, had exactly one post: from
> you. That's not much of a discussio
Hi,
On 2022-02-16 19:43:09 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> It makes the code in vacuumlazy.c much cleaner. In fact, that's how commit
> 44fa8488 started off -- purely as refactoring work.
The problem is that it didn't end up as that. You combined refactoring with
substantial changes. And describe
Hi,
On 2022-02-17 09:17:04 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> Commit messages need to describe what the commit actually changes.
> Theoretical ideas are fine, but if I, as a committer who have done
> significant work in this area in the past, can't read the commit
> message and understand what is actuall
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:43 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> How can you be surprised that I committed 44fa8488? It's essentially
> the same patch as the first version, posted November 22 -- almost 3
> months ago. And it's certainly not a big patch (though it is
> complicated).
Let's back up a minut
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 07:43:09PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > I also have a hard time making heads or tails out of the commit message of
> > 44fa84881ff. It's quite long without being particularly descriptive. The
> > commit just changes a lot of things at once, making it hard to precisely
>
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 7:08 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> I'm quite worried about the pace and style of the vacuum changes. To me it
> doesn't look like that there was design consensus before 44fa8488 was
> committed, quite the opposite (while 44fa8488 probably isn't the center of
> contention, it's
Hi,
On 2022-02-16 17:16:13 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 1:43 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > This fixes the observed problem directly. It also makes the code
> > robust against other similar problems that might arise in the future.
> > The risk that comes from trusting th
On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 1:43 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> This fixes the observed problem directly. It also makes the code
> robust against other similar problems that might arise in the future.
> The risk that comes from trusting that scanned_pages is a truly random
> sample (given these condition
13 matches
Mail list logo
