RE: Support logical replication of DDLs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com
Subject RE: Support logical replication of DDLs
Date
Msg-id OS0PR01MB57164FF9AB6AD1B3A82E336E94939@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Support logical replication of DDLs  (Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Friday, March 31, 2023 6:31 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

> 
> It seems that lately, the patch attachments are lacking version numbers. It
> causes unnecessary confusion. For example, I sometimes fetch patches from
> this thread locally to "diff" them with previous patches to get a rough overview
> of the changes -- that has now become more difficult.
> 
> Can you please reinstate the name convention of having version numbers for all
> patch attachments?
> 
> IMO *every* post that includes patches should unconditionally increment the
> patch version -- even if the new patches are just a rebase or some other trivial
> change. Version numbers make it clear what patches are the latest, you will be
> easily able to unambiguously refer to them by name in subsequent posts, and
> when copied to your local computer they won't clash with any older copied
> patches.

The patch currently use date as the version number. I think the reason is that
multiple people are working on the patch which cause the version numbers to be
changed very frequently(soon becomes a very large number). So to avoid this
, we used the date to distinguish different versions.

Best Regards,
Hou zj

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUG] pg_stat_statements and extended query protocol
Next
From: "Imseih (AWS), Sami"
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUG] pg_stat_statements and extended query protocol