Re: [HACKERS] WAL consistency check facility - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] WAL consistency check facility
Date
Msg-id 3649.1487117573@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] WAL consistency check facility  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] WAL consistency check facility  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just for curiosity: does the moment when the code has been written or
>> committed counts? It's no big deal seeing how liberal the Postgres
>> license is, but this makes me wonder...

> IANAL, but I think if you ask one, he or she will tell you that what
> matters is the date the work was created.  In the case of code, that
> means when the code was written.

FWIW, my own habit when creating new PG files is generally to write
* Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2017, PostgreSQL Global Development Group* Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the
Universityof California
 

even if it's "all new" code.  The main reason being that it's hardly ever
the case that you didn't copy-and-paste some amount of stuff out of a
pre-existing file, and trying to sort out how much of what originated
exactly when is an unrewarding exercise.  Even if it is basically all
new code, this feels like giving an appropriate amount of credit to
Those Who Went Before Us.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove all references to "xlog"from SQL-callable functions in p
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: [HACKERS] Missing CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in hash joins