| From: | Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Review: psql include file using relative path |
| Date: | 2011-06-05 17:06:17 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTikdmfGeHHFKqqz3tvmM+BNbdCHJCg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> Tweaks applied, but omitted the C variable names as I don't think that adds
> much value.
Your rewordings are fine, but the the article "the" is missing in a
few spots, e.g.
* "uses \ir command" -> "uses the \ir command"
* "to currently processing file" -> "to the currently processing file"
* "same as \i command" -> "same as the \i command"
I think "processing" is better (and consistent with the rest of the
comments) than "processed" here:
+ * the file from where the currently processed file (if any) is located.
> New version of the patch attached. Thanks for the review.
I think the patch is in pretty good shape now. The memory leak is gone
AFAICT, and the comments and documentation updates look good.
Josh
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-06-05 17:45:41 | Re: SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-05 15:51:48 | Re: Assert failure when rechecking an exclusion constraint |