Fair enough, the rephased version of the comments is in the attachment, please take a look.
--- a/src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c +++ b/src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c @@ -1583,8 +1583,8 @@ getInstallationPaths(const char *argv0) FreeDir(pdir); /* - * XXX is it worth similarly checking the share/ directory? If the lib/ - * directory is there, then share/ probably is too. + * It's not worth checking the share/ directory. If the lib/ directory + * is there, then share/ probably is too. */ } On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 11:50 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Junwang Zhao <zhjw...@gmail.com> writes: > > The comments considering checking share/ directory was there for > > almost 13 years, yet nobody ever trying to add the checking, and > > there seems never any trouble for not checking it, then I think > > we should remove those comments. > > I think that comment is valuable. It shows that checking the > sibling directories was considered and didn't seem worthwhile. > Perhaps it should be rephrased in a more positive way (without XXX), > but merely deleting it is a net negative because future hackers > would have to reconstruct that reasoning. > > BTW, we're working in a 30+-year-old code base, so the mere fact > that a comment has been there a long time does not make it bad. > > regards, tom lane -- Regards Junwang Zhao
0001-comments-rephrase-the-comment-in-a-more-positive-way.patch
Description: Binary data
