On 14/01/2016 14:29, Geoff Winkless wrote: > On 14 January 2016 at 13:16, Julien Rouhaud <julien.rouh...@dalibo.com> wrote: >> You're absolutely right, but in this case the comment is more like a >> reminder of a bigger comment few lines before that wasn't quoted in my mail > > Fair enough, although I have two niggles with that: > > a) the second comment could become physically separated from the first > by later additions of extra code, or by refactoring; > b) if you don't need the comment because the explanation for it is > local anyway and the comment tells you nothing that the code doesn't, > why have it at all? >
I agree. If I had to choose, I'd vote for removing it. >> so I assume it's ok to keep it this way. > > Of course it's ok to do whatever you decide is best: as I said > previously, I fully appreciate that I have no ownership over any of > the code. > Neither do I, I'm just reviewer here just as you :) -- Julien Rouhaud http://dalibo.com - http://dalibo.org -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
