Horton

Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures

Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Joshua Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>, Hannu Krosing <hannu@2ndQuadrant.com>, Asko Oja <ascoja@gmail.com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, David Fetter <david@fetter.org>, Martin Pihlak <martin.pihlak@gmail.com>
Date: 2008-08-19T19:32:29Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Le 19 août 08 à 20:47, Tom Lane a écrit :
> I'm not sure that I *want* a formal written-down backpatch policy.
> Whether (and how far) to backpatch has always been a best-judgment  
> call
> in the past, and we've gotten along fine with that.  I think having a
> formal policy is just likely to lead to even more complaints: either
> patching or not patching could result in second-guessing by someone
> who feels he can construe the policy to match the result he prefers.

Agreed.
The problem here (at least for me) was to understand why this (yet to  
be reviewed) patch is about implementing a new feature and not about  
bugfixing an existing one. So we're exactly in the fog around the  
informal backpatch policy, and as long as we're able to continue  
talking nicely about it, this seems the finest solution :)

Keep up the amazing work, regards,
-- 
dim