pgsql: pg_upgrade: simplify code layout in a few places
pg_upgrade: simplify code layout in a few places
Backpatch-through: 9.4 (9.3 didn't need improving)
Branch
------
master
Details
-------
https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/959ee6d267fb24e667fc64e9837a376e236e84a5
Modified Files
--------------
src/bin/pg_upgrade/exec.c | 2 --
src/bin/pg_upgrade/server.c | 8 ++------
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
pg_upgrade: simplify code layout in a few places
Backpatch-through: 9.4 (9.3 didn't need improving)
Hmm. We don't normally do things like this, because it breaks translatability.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 02:20:59PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
pg_upgrade: simplify code layout in a few places
Backpatch-through: 9.4 (9.3 didn't need improving)
Hmm. We don't normally do things like this, because it breaks translatability.
Oh, you mean the 'if()' statement? If so, I will revert that and add a
comment so I don't do it again in that place.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 02:20:59PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
pg_upgrade: simplify code layout in a few places
Backpatch-through: 9.4 (9.3 didn't need improving)
Hmm. We don't normally do things like this, because it breaks translatability.
Oh, you mean the 'if()' statement? If so, I will revert that and add a
comment so I don't do it again in that place.
Yeah.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 02:20:59PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
pg_upgrade: simplify code layout in a few places
Backpatch-through: 9.4 (9.3 didn't need improving)
Hmm. We don't normally do things like this, because it breaks translatability.
Oh, you mean the 'if()' statement? If so, I will revert that and add a
comment so I don't do it again in that place.
See 837255cc81fb59b12f5a70ac2a8a9850bccf13e0. I don't think adding
comments to every single place where this could be done (which is many
places, not just in pg_upgrade) is a good idea.
--
�lvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 02:20:59PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
pg_upgrade: simplify code layout in a few places
Backpatch-through: 9.4 (9.3 didn't need improving)
Hmm. We don't normally do things like this, because it breaks translatability.
Oh, you mean the 'if()' statement? If so, I will revert that and add a
comment so I don't do it again in that place.See 837255cc81fb59b12f5a70ac2a8a9850bccf13e0. I don't think adding
comments to every single place where this could be done (which is many
places, not just in pg_upgrade) is a good idea.
It's also documented, of course.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/nls-programmer.html#NLS-GUIDELINES
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 02:31:51PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 02:20:59PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
pg_upgrade: simplify code layout in a few places
Backpatch-through: 9.4 (9.3 didn't need improving)
Hmm. We don't normally do things like this, because it breaks translatability.
Oh, you mean the 'if()' statement? If so, I will revert that and add a
comment so I don't do it again in that place.Yeah.
Thanks, done.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 02:37:58PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 02:20:59PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
pg_upgrade: simplify code layout in a few places
Backpatch-through: 9.4 (9.3 didn't need improving)
Hmm. We don't normally do things like this, because it breaks translatability.
Oh, you mean the 'if()' statement? If so, I will revert that and add a
comment so I don't do it again in that place.See 837255cc81fb59b12f5a70ac2a8a9850bccf13e0. I don't think adding
comments to every single place where this could be done (which is many
places, not just in pg_upgrade) is a good idea.It's also documented, of course.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/nls-programmer.html#NLS-GUIDELINES
OK, C comment removed.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
On 2018-01-05 14:20:59 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
pg_upgrade: simplify code layout in a few places
Backpatch-through: 9.4 (9.3 didn't need improving)
Hmm. We don't normally do things like this, because it breaks translatability.
Also, leaving translatability aside, why was *any* of this backpatched?
Unless there's very good maintainability reasons we normally don't
backpatch minor refactorings?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 03:51:15PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2018-01-05 14:20:59 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
pg_upgrade: simplify code layout in a few places
Backpatch-through: 9.4 (9.3 didn't need improving)
Hmm. We don't normally do things like this, because it breaks translatability.
Also, leaving translatability aside, why was *any* of this backpatched?
Unless there's very good maintainability reasons we normally don't
backpatch minor refactorings?
Tom has preferred that I backpatch all safe patches so we keep that code
consistent so we can backpatch other things more easily.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +On 2018-01-05 18:57:55 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 03:51:15PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2018-01-05 14:20:59 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
pg_upgrade: simplify code layout in a few places
Backpatch-through: 9.4 (9.3 didn't need improving)
Hmm. We don't normally do things like this, because it breaks translatability.
Also, leaving translatability aside, why was *any* of this backpatched?
Unless there's very good maintainability reasons we normally don't
backpatch minor refactorings?Tom has preferred that I backpatch all safe patches so we keep that code
consistent so we can backpatch other things more easily.
I've a hard time believing this. Tom?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
On 2018-01-05 18:57:55 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 03:51:15PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
Also, leaving translatability aside, why was *any* of this backpatched?
Tom has preferred that I backpatch all safe patches so we keep that code
consistent so we can backpatch other things more easily.
I've a hard time believing this. Tom?
I've been known to back-patch stuff just to keep branches consistent,
but it's always a judgement call. In this case I wouldn't have done it
(even if the patch were a good idea in HEAD) because it would cause
churn in translatable messages in the back branches. Also, the case
for cosmetic back-patching is only strong when a particular file is
already pretty similar across all branches, and I'm not sure that
holds for pg_upgrade.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 08:39:46PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
On 2018-01-05 18:57:55 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 03:51:15PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
Also, leaving translatability aside, why was *any* of this backpatched?
Tom has preferred that I backpatch all safe patches so we keep that code
consistent so we can backpatch other things more easily.I've a hard time believing this. Tom?
I've been known to back-patch stuff just to keep branches consistent,
but it's always a judgement call. In this case I wouldn't have done it
(even if the patch were a good idea in HEAD) because it would cause
churn in translatable messages in the back branches. Also, the case
for cosmetic back-patching is only strong when a particular file is
already pretty similar across all branches, and I'm not sure that
holds for pg_upgrade.
There was a time when pg_upgrade was similar in all branches and
churning a lot with fixes, so I was going on that plan. At this point I
don't think that is true anymore, so maybe we can switch just to head
and PG 10 on this.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +