Re: let's not complain about harmless patch-apply failures - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: let's not complain about harmless patch-apply failures
Date
Msg-id CAH2-WzmSQh3hZZoYtddvD8a11720p2EpD691imvJL0gDww-ojw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: let's not complain about harmless patch-apply failures  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> FWIW, I think that that represents bad practice in those changes,
> precisely because of the hazard it poses for uncommitted patches.
> If you're changing a function signature, it's usually not that hard
> to make sure that un-updated code will produce a failure or warning,
> and you should generally do so IMO.

I strongly agree. That's an example of the programmer exploiting
mechanical detection of conflicts deliberately, which is great. All of
these things are tools, and like all tools they are generally not
helpful unless used thoughtfully.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: let's not complain about harmless patch-apply failures
Next
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication status in logical replication