Re: WIP: About CMake v2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: WIP: About CMake v2
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobV80YPttsmAx+w24a0Thrfp9mtg2AC3Q2uSO7qFweF6w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP: About CMake v2  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Craig Ringer
> <craig.ringer@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 9 Nov. 2016 06:37, "Yury Zhuravlev" <u.zhuravlev@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>>> This approach I see only in Postgres project and not fully understood.
>>> Can you explain me more what reasons led to this approach?
>>
>> It's predictable. The default has the same result for everyone. I quite like
>> it myself.
>
> +1. Let's tell to the system what we want him to do and not let him
> guess what we'd like to be done or it will get harder to test and
> develop code for all kind of code paths with #ifdef's. That's one step
> away from Skynet.

Exaggerate much?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel execution and prepared statements
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Use of pg_proc.probin is legal?