Re: Splitting up guc.c
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari@ilmari.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2022-09-12T20:50:24Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi, On 2022-09-12 21:12:03 +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote: > Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > > >> I think this is localized enough that asking people to manually resolve a > >> conflict around adding a GUC entry wouldn't be asking for that much. And I > >> think plenty changes might be automatically resolvable, despite the rename. > > > > I wonder whether git will be able to figure out that this is mostly a > > code move. I would expect so for a straight file rename, but will that > > work when we're splitting the file 3 ways? > > Git can detect more complicated code movement (see the `--color-moved` > option to `git diff`), but I'm not sure it's clever enough to realise > that a change modifying a block of code that was moved in the meanwhile > should be applied at the new destination. It sometimes can for large code movements, but not in this case. I think because guc.c is more self-similar than guc_tables.c. Greetings, Andres Freund
Commits
-
Split up guc.c for better build speed and ease of maintenance.
- 0a20ff54f5e6 16.0 landed