At Wed, 14 Sep 2022 09:19:22 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote
in
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 9:10 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Amit Kapila writes:
> >
> > There are basically two good reasons to back-patch comment changes:
> >
> > * fear that the comment is wrong enough to mislead people looking
> > at th
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 9:10 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila writes:
>
> There are basically two good reasons to back-patch comment changes:
>
> * fear that the comment is wrong enough to mislead people looking
> at the older branch;
>
> * fear that leaving it alone will create a merge hazard
Amit Kapila writes:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 8:16 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> wrote:
>> I found a small typo in a comment in pgbench.c of 15/master.
>> - * Return the number fo failed transactions.
>> + * Return the number of failed transactions.
> LGTM.
+1
>&g
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 8:16 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
>
> I found a small typo in a comment in pgbench.c of 15/master.
>
> - * Return the number fo failed transactions.
> + * Return the number of failed transactions.
>
LGTM.
> While at it, I found "* lot fo un
On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 10:46 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
wrote:
> I found a small typo in a comment in pgbench.c of 15/master.
>
> - * Return the number fo failed transactions.
> + * Return the number of failed transactions.
>
> While at it, I found "* lot fo unnec
I found a small typo in a comment in pgbench.c of 15/master.
- * Return the number fo failed transactions.
+ * Return the number of failed transactions.
While at it, I found "* lot fo unnecessary work." in pg13's
procsignal.c. It has been fixed by 2a093355aa in PG14 but PG13 wa
