From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Updated posix fadvise patch v19 |
Date: | 2008-11-18 15:11:42 |
Message-ID: | 4922DB2E.6060509@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gregory Stark wrote:
> The XXX is something that probably needs to be fixed but it's just a question
> of what header file to put a declaration in. I couldn't find a good choice but
> perhaps someone else has an idea?
>
> For the FIXMEs I don't have any problem leaving them in place. They're
> warnings to future coders working in the same area of what they may have to do
> to make the code more general. In particular both FIXMEs are related to memory
> management of the iterator structures. I think just allocating them in the
> bitmap memory context is fine for existing callers. I would rather leave them
> there because I would like a reviewer to double check that we don't have a
> memory leak there.
There are probably no rigid rules on this, but my interpretation of
these tags is usually this:
XXX -- not sure if this is the best way to do this, needs ideas
TODO -- specific ideas for improvement
FIXME -- broken, must be fixed to be usable
So committed code should probably not contain any FIXMEs, but possibly
some of the others.
I usually label stubs in work-in-progress code with // FIXME and then
check if I removed them all before proposing a patch for inclusion.
But those are just my ideas ...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-11-18 15:20:42 | Re: Updated posix fadvise patch v19 |
Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2008-11-18 15:10:09 | Re: toast by chunk-end (was Re: PG_PAGE_LAYOUT_VERSION 5 - time for change) |