Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect range in pg_regress comment

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Ilia Evdokimov <ilya(dot)evdokimov(at)tantorlabs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect range in pg_regress comment
Date: 2025-02-03 00:34:24
Message-ID: Z6APEBHLeWrPTP0L@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Feb 02, 2025 at 05:01:33PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oh. I see we did document it as 0-9 in [1], so I guess we're
> stuck with that now. Objection withdrawn.

Oh. I didn't know that 0 was accepted. We learn new things every
day.

Right, let's adjust the comment to reflect what the docs say, as your
patch does. I presume that Tom will do that..
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2025-02-03 00:46:17 Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2025-02-03 00:29:17 Re: Proposal to CREATE FOREIGN TABLE LIKE