| From: | "Albe Laurenz" <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Robert Haas *EXTERN*" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? |
| Date: | 2012-03-08 09:49:48 |
| Message-ID: | D960CB61B694CF459DCFB4B0128514C207950642@exadv11.host.magwien.gv.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas wrote:
> Well, I guess I'm still of the opinion that the real question is
> whether the particular lint checks that Pavel's implemented are good
> and useful things. Has anyone spent any time looking at *that*?
Actually, I did when I reviewed the patch the first time round.
I think that the checks implemented are clearly good and useful,
since any problem reported will lead to an error at runtime if
a certain code path in the function is taken. And if the code path
is never taken, that's valuable information too.
I don't say that there are no good checks missing, but the ones
that are there are good IMO.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2012-03-08 10:12:53 | Re: pg_basebackup streaming issue from standby |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-03-08 07:35:42 | Re: poll: CHECK TRIGGER? |