Re: Confusing comment in xlog.c or am I missing something?

From: Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Confusing comment in xlog.c or am I missing something?
Date: 2013-05-02 06:50:29
Message-ID: CA+HiwqFJkOg1mN98vmAwy0nMFq1nfbx89i3kXLY8oU0XcXn+sQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Yeah, that would be more correct. The phrase we seem to use elsewhere in
> xlog.c is "crossing a logid boundary".

Should we change it in 9.2 to clear the confusion?

(Attached is a rather small patch to fix that! :) )

--
Amit Langote

minor-xlog-comment.patch (914 bytes) <http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/attachment/5754017/0/minor-xlog-comment.patch>

--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Confusing-comment-in-xlog-c-or-am-I-missing-something-tp5754010p5754017.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2013-05-02 06:55:18 Re: Recovery target 'immediate'
Previous Message Pavan Deolasee 2013-05-02 06:34:15 Re: Confusing long option in pg_receivexlog/basebackup/dumpall