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 patches I do back-patch can be cherry-picked
> all the way back without a problem. Some require adjustment, but even
> then this kind of thing is pretty trivial to handle, as it's pretty
> obvious what happened when you look through it. The really nasty
> problems tend to come from places where the code has been rearranged,
> rather than simple A-for-B substitutions.
>
> 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
> release cycle and of that this kind of thing accounts for 5,000 lines
> of deltas, then IMHO it's not really material. If it accounts for
> 50,000 lines of deltas out of the same base, that's probably more than
> can really be justified by the benefit we're going to get out of it.
The true/false capitalization patch changes 1.2k lines.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
