On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 at 23:22, Tom Lane wrote:
> LGTM.
Thanks. Pushed.
David
David Rowley writes:
> I wanted something more like /* ... so we must never set a collation
> */ but that put the line longer than 80. I thought wrapping to a 2nd
> line was excessive, so I shortened it to that.
LGTM.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 at 13:52, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 09:21:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On 2021-Apr-08, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Maybe like
> >>
> >> case T_ScalarArrayOpExpr:
> >> /* ScalarArrayOpExpr's result is boolean ... */
>
On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 09:21:30PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2021-Apr-08, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maybe like
>>
>> case T_ScalarArrayOpExpr:
>> /* ScalarArrayOpExpr's result is boolean ... */
>> coll = InvalidOid; /* ... so it has no
On 2021-Apr-08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Maybe like
>
> case T_ScalarArrayOpExpr:
> /* ScalarArrayOpExpr's result is boolean ... */
> coll = InvalidOid; /* ... so it has no collation */
> break;
This is much clearer, yeah.
David Rowley writes:
> hmm ok. I imagine there must be a better way to say that then since
> it confused at least 1 reader so far. My problem is that I assumed
> "result" meant the result of the function that the comment is written
> in, not the result of evaluating the given expression during
>
On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 at 10:11, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> David Rowley writes:
> > I noticed that nodeFuncs.c appears to have some pretty sloppy work
> > done in many of the comments. Many look like they've just not been
> > updated from a copy/paste/edit from another node function.
> > The attached aims
David Rowley writes:
> I noticed that nodeFuncs.c appears to have some pretty sloppy work
> done in many of the comments. Many look like they've just not been
> updated from a copy/paste/edit from another node function.
> The attached aims to clean these up.
I believe every one of these changes
