On Sat, 14 Sept 2024, 23:44 Tom Lane, wrote:
> Julien Rouhaud writes:
> > On Sat, 14 Sept 2024, 12:39 Tom Lane, wrote:
> >> Hmm ... I agree that para is out of date, but is there anything to
> >> salvage rather than just delete it?
>
> > I thought about it but I think that now that knowledge is
Julien Rouhaud writes:
> On Sat, 14 Sept 2024, 12:39 Tom Lane, wrote:
>> Hmm ... I agree that para is out of date, but is there anything to
>> salvage rather than just delete it?
> I thought about it but I think that now that knowledge is in the else
> branch, with the mention that we still have
On Sat, 14 Sept 2024, 12:39 Tom Lane, wrote:
> Julien Rouhaud writes:
> > While adapting in pg_stat_kcache the fix for buggy nesting level
> calculation, I
> > noticed that one comment referencing the old approach was missed.
> Trivial
> > patch attached.
>
> Hmm ... I agree that para is out of
Julien Rouhaud writes:
> While adapting in pg_stat_kcache the fix for buggy nesting level calculation,
> I
> noticed that one comment referencing the old approach was missed. Trivial
> patch attached.
Hmm ... I agree that para is out of date, but is there anything to
salvage rather than just de
17 00:00:00 2001
From: Julien Rouhaud
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 12:18:19 +0800
Subject: [PATCH v1] Remove obsolete comment in pg_stat_statements
Commit 76db9cb6368 removed the use of multiple nesting counters but missed an
associated comment.
---
contrib/pg_stat_statements/pg_stat_statements.c
