Horton

Re: Key management with tests

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>

View thread
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, Tom Kincaid <tomjohnkincaid@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: 2021-01-18T19:00:38Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Rethink method for assigning OIDs to the template0 and postgres DBs.

  2. pg_upgrade: Preserve database OIDs.

  3. pg_upgrade: Preserve relfilenodes and tablespace OIDs.

  4. Fix for new Boolean node

  5. Improve error handling of HMAC computations

  6. Add macro RelationIsPermanent() to report relation permanence

  7. Enhance nbtree index tuple deletion.

On 2021-01-18 13:58:20 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 09:42:54AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Personally, but I admit that there's legitimate reasons to differ on
> > that note, I don't think it's reasonable for a feature this invasive to
> > commit preliminary patches without the major subsequent patches being in
> > a shape that allows reviewing the whole picture.
> 
> OK, if that is a requirement, I can't help anymore since there are
> already complaints that the patch is too large to review, even if broken
> into pieces.  Please let me know what the community decides.

Those aren't conflicting demands. Having later patches around to
validate the design of earlier patches doesn't necessitates that the
later patches need to be reviewed at the same time.