On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 12:26:30PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > So a patch of 1K lines would by itself represent about 2% of the typical
> > inter-branch delta. Maybe that's below our threshold of pain, or maybe
> > it isn't. I'd be happier about it if there were a more compelling
> > argument f
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 03:09:08PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> I think the thing we need to look at is what percentage of our code
>>> churn is coming from stuff like this, versus what percentage of it is
>>> coming fr
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 03:09:08PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think the thing we need to look at is what percentage of our code
>> churn is coming from stuff like this, versus what percentage of it is
>> coming from other factors. If we change 250,000 lines of code per
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 03:09:08PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I have difficult believing that a change of this type, if implemented
> judiciously, is really going to create that much difficulty in
> back-patching. I don't do as much back-patching as Tom either (no one
> does), but most of the pat
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 02:21:12PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>> > So what do we want to do with this? I am a little concerned that
>> > we are sacrificing code clarity for backpatching ease, but I don't
>> > do
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 02:21:12PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > So what do we want to do with this? I am a little concerned that
> > we are sacrificing code clarity for backpatching ease, but I don't
> > do as much backpatching as Tom.
>
> Well, if you back-patche
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> So what do we want to do with this? I am a little concerned that
> we are sacrificing code clarity for backpatching ease, but I don't
> do as much backpatching as Tom.
Well, if you back-patched this change, it would eliminate the issue
for Tom, wouldn't it? Not sure if
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:57:08PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 17:36 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:34:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 09:00:11PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > >> O
On Tue, 2012-08-14 at 17:36 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:34:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 09:00:11PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > >> On tor, 2011-08-04 at 14:44 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> > >>> I meant
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 05:34:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 09:00:11PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> On tor, 2011-08-04 at 14:44 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> >>> I meant a mass "sed -e 's/TRUE/true/g' -e 's/FALSE/false/g'" run
> >>> so
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 09:00:11PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On tor, 2011-08-04 at 14:44 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
>>> I meant a mass "sed -e 's/TRUE/true/g' -e 's/FALSE/false/g'" run
>>> so all the ~200 occurrences of both "TRUE" and "FALSE" get
>>> convert
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 09:00:11PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tor, 2011-08-04 at 14:44 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> > 2011-08-04 14:32 keltezéssel, Robert Haas írta:
> > > 2011/8/4 Boszormenyi Zoltan :
> > >> Shouldn't these get fixed to be consistent?
> > > I believe I already did.
On tor, 2011-08-04 at 14:44 +0200, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> 2011-08-04 14:32 keltezéssel, Robert Haas írta:
> > 2011/8/4 Boszormenyi Zoltan :
> >> Shouldn't these get fixed to be consistent?
> > I believe I already did. See commit
> > 85b436f7b1f06a6ffa8d2f29b03d6e440de18784.
>
> I meant a ma
On 4 August 2011 13:57, Robert Haas wrote:
> Oh, I see. Well, I don't care either way, so I'll let others weigh
> in. The way it is doesn't bother me, but fixing it doesn't bother me
> either.
Idiomatic win32 code uses BOOL and TRUE/FALSE. They are macros defined
somewhere or other.
--
Peter
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> 2011-08-04 14:32 keltezéssel, Robert Haas írta:
>> 2011/8/4 Boszormenyi Zoltan :
>>> Shouldn't these get fixed to be consistent?
>> I believe I already did. See commit
>> 85b436f7b1f06a6ffa8d2f29b03d6e440de18784.
>
> I meant a mass "sed
2011-08-04 14:32 keltezéssel, Robert Haas írta:
> 2011/8/4 Boszormenyi Zoltan :
>> Shouldn't these get fixed to be consistent?
> I believe I already did. See commit 85b436f7b1f06a6ffa8d2f29b03d6e440de18784.
I meant a mass "sed -e 's/TRUE/true/g' -e 's/FALSE/false/g'" run
so all the ~200 occurren
2011/8/4 Boszormenyi Zoltan :
> Shouldn't these get fixed to be consistent?
I believe I already did. See commit 85b436f7b1f06a6ffa8d2f29b03d6e440de18784.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-ha
17 matches
Mail list logo
