Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paesold
Subject Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures
Date
Msg-id 8EBDB5D7-BC8E-4C5A-8DCE-B8A94C5001DA@gmx.at
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Am 19.08.2008 um 20:47 schrieb Tom Lane:

> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>> Joshua Drake wrote:
>>> Is our backpatch policy documented? It does not appear to be in
>>> developer FAQ.
>
>> Seems we need to add it.
>
> I'm not sure that I *want* a formal written-down backpatch policy.
> Whether (and how far) to backpatch has always been a best-judgment  
> call
> in the past, and we've gotten along fine with that.  I think having a
> formal policy is just likely to lead to even more complaints: either
> patching or not patching could result in second-guessing by someone
> who feels he can construe the policy to match the result he prefers.

Agreeing to you and some later posters in this thread, I would not  
vote for a formal policy either. But IMHO there should be a general,  
informal note about backpatching in developer docs/faqs. A place where  
you can point to, and a chance for new people to read about the  
postgres way of handling backpatching.

Btw., how backpatching is handled here is one of the reasons I trust  
my data to postgres.

Best Regards
Michael


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Dave Page"
Date:
Subject: Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf
Next
From: Michael Paesold
Date:
Subject: Re: A smaller default postgresql.conf