On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 5:48 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 04:20:36PM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> > The v2 patches are updated as follows:
> >
> > 0001 - Now this patch only fixes a comment that had a wrong enum name.
>
> This was wrong, so fixed.
Thanks for pushing!
>
> >
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 04:20:36PM +1100, Peter Smith wrote:
> The v2 patches are updated as follows:
>
> 0001 - Now this patch only fixes a comment that had a wrong enum name.
This was wrong, so fixed.
> 0002 - Removes unnecessary whitespace (same as v1-0002)
This one does not seem worth doing
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 12:04 PM Peter Smith wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 2:21 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Peter Smith writes:
> > > Enums index a number of the GUC tables. This all relies on the
> > > elements being carefully arranged to be in the same order as those
> > > enums. There are
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 2:21 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Peter Smith writes:
> > Enums index a number of the GUC tables. This all relies on the
> > elements being carefully arranged to be in the same order as those
> > enums. There are comments to say what enum index belongs to each table
> > element.
Peter Smith writes:
> Enums index a number of the GUC tables. This all relies on the
> elements being carefully arranged to be in the same order as those
> enums. There are comments to say what enum index belongs to each table
> element.
> But why not use designated initializers to enforce what th
On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 09:27:48AM +1000, Peter Smith wrote:
> But why not use designated initializers to enforce what the comments
> are hoping for?
This is a C99 thing as far as I understand, adding one safety net.
Why not for these cases..
> Doing this also exposed a minor typo in the comments
