On 17 January 2012 01:37, Robert Haas wrote:
>> It's a fairly inconsequential bug, but it is worth fixing...
>
> Fixed.
Thanks.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@post
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:21 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On 20 December 2011 18:11, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Simon Riggs writes:
>>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Peter Geoghegan
>>> wrote:
In fact, that macro is defined in access/htup.h...should it be?
>>
>>> IMHO comment is wrong, code is
On 20 December 2011 18:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs writes:
>> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Peter Geoghegan
>> wrote:
>>> In fact, that macro is defined in access/htup.h...should it be?
>
>> IMHO comment is wrong, code is in the right place.
>
> It used to be in heapam.h ... evidently,
Simon Riggs writes:
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Peter Geoghegan
> wrote:
>> In fact, that macro is defined in access/htup.h...should it be?
> IMHO comment is wrong, code is in the right place.
It used to be in heapam.h ... evidently, whoever moved it missed this
comment.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Line 834 of heapam.c has the following comment:
>
> /*
> * This is formatted so oddly so that the correspondence to the macro
> * definition in access/heapam.h is maintained.
> */
>
> In fact, that macro is defined in access/htup.h...sho
