Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2024 15:57:17 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>,
	Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>,
	Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Assertion failure with summarize_wal enabled during
 pg_createsubscriber
Message-ID: <Zqsw27aoR8p_XV44@paquier.xyz>
References: <CA+TgmobLaJTxCHgdh04rfsUMEhP_ceDbiF0M=gtw5jG4q_zPbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoY9QC_CUA0F8febGj_5AgnCk8rG7AkX4rhJPvvHeshYtQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoYW8eR+KN6zhVH0sin7QH6AvENqw_bkN-bB4yLYKAnsew@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoZGEsZodXC4f=XZNkAeyuDmWTSkpkjCEOcF19Am0mt_OA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoYry+iPM3DFpD2jy=4afvXm09qPUFiBS6EAY92VzCR8Pg@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZqPGDo2e2y4y_Eao@nathan>
 <CA+TgmoZz+mBX5F2cg7t2iKXbEakSDVE3rWxW1NRhBphXrO=7TQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfduW3du0W=3noztdaJ6evGP9gqT1AGk_rwXrqDyus1zZoQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+TgmoZrUjqA0dnLYQ6sunVmBKBAm0OLP49hKvZOuzq7v-0iKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdtT=xAwEQL-fgRLz7vGXABFnnFReienNBJmfPwRZP8-NA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+W3OCc/3PofDgFT5"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPpHfdtT=xAwEQL-fgRLz7vGXABFnnFReienNBJmfPwRZP8-NA@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Zqsw27aoR8p_XV44%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--+W3OCc/3PofDgFT5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 04:49:54PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 7:20=E2=80=AFPM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.co=
m> wrote:
>> I support that idea in general but felt it was overkill in this case:
>> it's new code, and there was only one existing caller of the function
>> that got refactored, and I'm not a huge fan of cluttering the git
>> history with a bunch of tiny little refactoring commits to fix a
>> single bug. I might have changed it if I'd seen this note before
>> committing, though.
>=20
> I understand your point.  I'm also not huge fan of a flood of small
> commits.  Nevertheless, I find splitting refactoring from other
> changes generally useful.  That could be a single commit of many small
> refactorings, not many small commits.  The point for me is easier
> review: you can expect refactoring commit to contain "isomorphic"
> changes, while other commits implementing material logic changes.

For review, it also tends to matter a lot to me, especially if the
same areas of code are changed across multiple commits.  That's more
annoying for authors as the splits are annoying to maintain.  For a
single caller introduced, what Robert has done is fine IMO.

> But that might be a committer preference though.

I tend to prefer refactorings if it comes to a cleaner git history,
still that's always case-by-case, and all of us have our own habits.
--
Michael

--+W3OCc/3PofDgFT5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=hjqC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--+W3OCc/3PofDgFT5--