Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 17:55:52 -0400
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: new heapcheck contrib module
Message-ID: <20200630215552.GA21610@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <D90E901F-B97A-40A9-86AD-3E42C153A142@enterprisedb.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-Jun-30, Mark Dilger wrote:

> I'm guessing that hardening the backend would be a separate patch?  Or
> did you want that as part of this one?

Lately, to me the foremost criterion to determine what is a separate
patch and what isn't is the way the commit message is structured.  If it
looks too much like a bullet list of unrelated things, that suggests
that the commit should be split into one commit per bullet point; of
course, there are counterexamples.  But when I have a commit message
that says "I do A, and I also do B because I need it for A", then it
makes more sense to do B first standalone and then A on top.  OTOH if
two things are done because they're heavily intermixed (e.g. commit
850196b610d2, bullet points galore), that suggests that one commit is a
decent approach.

Just my opinion, of course.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services