Re: new heapcheck contrib module - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: new heapcheck contrib module
Date
Msg-id 20200630215552.GA21610@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: new heapcheck contrib module  (Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2020-Jun-30, Mark Dilger wrote:

> I'm guessing that hardening the backend would be a separate patch?  Or
> did you want that as part of this one?

Lately, to me the foremost criterion to determine what is a separate
patch and what isn't is the way the commit message is structured.  If it
looks too much like a bullet list of unrelated things, that suggests
that the commit should be split into one commit per bullet point; of
course, there are counterexamples.  But when I have a commit message
that says "I do A, and I also do B because I need it for A", then it
makes more sense to do B first standalone and then A on top.  OTOH if
two things are done because they're heavily intermixed (e.g. commit
850196b610d2, bullet points galore), that suggests that one commit is a
decent approach.

Just my opinion, of course.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Mark Dilger
Date:
Subject: Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators?
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode