On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 09:08:01PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 02:48:49PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> Pavel, I can't understand this one.
>> I guess s/producement/producing/ is too simple of a fix.
>> Please check my proposed language.
>> +XmlTableFetchRow(TableFuncScan
->last_u_d = true; /* will make "int a -1" work */
return (ident); /* the ident is not in the list */
-}/* end of procesing for alpanum character */
+}/* end of processing for alphanum character */
/* Scan a non-alphanumeric token */
--
2.17.0
>From c0f
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 25/10/2020 21:48, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> Heikki, do you remember what this means ?
>> +++ b/src/backend/catalog/storage.c
>> + * NOTE: the list is kept in TopMemoryContext to be sure it won't disappear
>> + * unbetimes. It'd probably be OK to keep it in TopTransac
On 25/10/2020 21:48, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 05:56:40AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
I needed another distraction so bulk-checked for typos, limited to comments in
*.[ch].
I'm not passionate about this, but it serves the purpose of reducing the
overhead of fixing them indivi
y Tom in 35cb574aa. Should we simply fix the typo,
or borrow Julien/Tom's lanuage?
+ * Tuple at limit is needed for comparation in subsequent
+ * execution to detect ties.
>From fba47da46875c6c89a52225ac39f40e1993a9b56 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Justin Pryzby
Date: Sun,
On 02/04/18 07:03, Tom Lane wrote:
=?UTF-8?Q?F=C3=A9lix_GERZAGUET?= writes:
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Justin Pryzby
wrote:
I needed another distraction so bulk-checked for typos, limited to
comments in *.[ch].
I think you introduced another one while changing "explcitly" to
"expilcit
Hi,
On 2018-03-31 05:56:40 -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> --- a/src/backend/jit/llvm/llvmjit_expr.c
> +++ b/src/backend/jit/llvm/llvmjit_expr.c
> @@ -1768,7 +1768,7 @@ llvm_compile_expr(ExprState *state)
>
> b_compare_result,
>
=?UTF-8?Q?F=C3=A9lix_GERZAGUET?= writes:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Justin Pryzby
> wrote:
>> I needed another distraction so bulk-checked for typos, limited to
>> comments in *.[ch].
> I think you introduced another one while changing "explcitly" to
> "expilcitly" instead of "explicitl
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Justin Pryzby
wrote:
> I needed another distraction so bulk-checked for typos, limited to
> comments in
> *.[ch].
>
I think you introduced another one while changing "explcitly" to
"expilcitly" instead of "explicitly" :-)
--
Félix
I needed another distraction so bulk-checked for typos, limited to comments in
*.[ch].
I'm not passionate about this, but it serves the purpose of reducing the
overhead of fixing them individually.
Also I heard something here recently about ugly languages..
time find . -name '*.c' -print0 |xargs
10 matches
Mail list logo
