Re: [PATCHES] Custom variable class segmentation fault

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Custom variable class segmentation fault
Date: 2006-08-15 14:14:22
Message-ID: 200608151414.k7FEEMU25823@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> Bruce, Andrew, Tom.
>
> I little bit confuse now, what status of this patch is? I check your
> observation and I agree with them. But I don't where is "ball" now and
> what I can/must do now like author of this patch?

I am unsure too. I would not back out a patch for nonspecific concerns
from one person, but from two people I reverted it. Tom wants more eyes
on it, but I don't know how that is going to happen, especially since
Peter, who has done a lot of GUC work, has reviewed it already, and so
have I.

I will keep the patches and if no one works on it, again ask to apply it
before we finish 8.2, and see if there are still objections. If there
are still objections, we will have to vote on whether we want it
applied.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> Bruce Momjian napsal(a):
> > OK, with two people now concerned, patch reverted.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>
> >> Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> I've always found it easier to review uncommitted patches than committed
> >>> ones anyway. When you're playing catch-up by reviewing a committed
> >>> patch, you have to deal with three states of the code rather than two
> >>> (pre-patch, post-patch, your own mods). That gets rapidly worse if the
> >>> patch has been in there awhile and other changes go in on top of it.
> >>> Plus, once other changes accumulate on top, it becomes extremely painful
> >>> to revert if the conclusion is that the patch is completely broken.
> >>> (A conclusion that I don't think is at all unlikely with respect to
> >>> this patch.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Easy or not this strikes me as good policy. And nothing is urgent quite
> >> yet - we still have another 18 days to the end of the month, which is
> >> the stated deadline for getting patches reviewed and committed.
> >>
> >> cheers
> >>
> >> andrew
> >>
> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> >> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> >

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message William ZHANG 2006-08-15 14:26:07 Re: ecpg tests make failed on Win32/MinGW
Previous Message Zdenek Kotala 2006-08-15 14:11:01 Re: Intermittent "make check" failures on hyena

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2006-08-15 14:31:58 Re: Forcing current WAL file to be archived
Previous Message Zdenek Kotala 2006-08-15 13:59:09 Re: [PATCHES] Custom variable class segmentation fault