| From: | Andrei Zubkov <zubkov(at)moonset(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Anton A(dot) Melnikov" <aamelnikov(at)inbox(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Tracking statements entry timestamp in pg_stat_statements |
| Date: | 2022-04-03 10:24:40 |
| Message-ID: | 552e16d51f02fd4f29ae58bb24888e38f6e193c5.camel@moonset.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Julien,
On Sun, 2022-04-03 at 17:56 +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Just another minor nitpicking after a quick look:
>
> + This field will be zero if ...
> [...]
> + this field will contain zero until this statement ...
>
> The wording should be consistent, so either "will be zero" or "will
> contain
> zero" everywhere. I'm personally fine with any, but maybe a native
> English
> will think one is better.
Agreed.
Searching the docs I've fond out that "will contain" usually used with
the description of contained structure rather then a simple value. So
I'll use a "will be zero" in the next version after your review.
--
regards, Andrei
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2022-04-03 10:29:11 | Re: Defer selection of asynchronous subplans until the executor initialization stage |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-04-03 09:56:16 | Re: [PATCH] Tracking statements entry timestamp in pg_stat_statements |