| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Stale references to guc.c in comments/tests |
| Date: | 2023-02-28 22:52:46 |
| Message-ID: | 97B5D701-696C-4018-8BB8-FBA294A9E4E4@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 27 Feb 2023, at 17:59, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> The grammar is a bit off ("the GUC definition" would read better),
> but really I think the wording was vague already and we should tighten
> it up. Can we specify exactly which GUC variable(s) we're talking about?
Specifying the GUCs in question is a good idea, done in the attached. I'm not
sure the phrasing is spot-on though, but I can't think of a better one. If you
can think of a better one I'm all ears.
--
Daniel Gustafsson
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0001-Fix-outdated-references-to-guc.c.patch | application/octet-stream | 6.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Regina Obe | 2023-02-28 22:59:16 | RE: Ability to reference other extensions by schema in extension scripts |
| Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2023-02-28 22:47:09 | Re: RFC: logical publication via inheritance root? |