Re: Incorrect comment regarding command completion tags

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Incorrect comment regarding command completion tags
Date: 2022-10-14 01:39:23
Message-ID: CAApHDvp4s6p4qfrwX0XkJX93_H9O1yUYD6DTF9v+-NOfKzsdNg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 14 Oct 2022 at 11:38, Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13, 2022, at 2:56 PM, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > In the attached, I rewrote the comment to remove mention of the
> > Asserts. I also tried to form the comment in a way that's more
> > understandable about why we always write a "0" in "INSERT 0 <nrows>".
>
> Your wording is better. +1

Thanks for having a look. I adjusted the wording slightly as I had
written "ancient" in regards to PostgreSQL 11 and earlier. It's
probably a bit early to call a supported version of PostgreSQL ancient
so I just decided to mention the version number instead.

I pushed the resulting patch.

Thanks for having a look.

David

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2022-10-14 02:00:10 Re: Support tls-exporter as channel binding for TLSv1.3
Previous Message Andres Freund 2022-10-14 01:34:26 Re: New "single-call SRF" APIs are very confusingly named