Thanks for looking! Pushed.
On Sat, Nov 07, 2020 at 12:49:43AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> In 0001, I propose changing messages that were introduced as different
> for parallel vacuum workers. Frankly I don't understand why we are
> bragging about the vacuum being done in a parallel worker; does the user
> care? It seem
I propose to apply the following changes to messages in pg13.
In 0001, I propose changing messages that were introduced as different
for parallel vacuum workers. Frankly I don't understand why we are
bragging about the vacuum being done in a parallel worker; does the user
care? It seems to me t
Y". I'm not able to judge which of the two is
> > better (so change all messages to use that form), or if there's a
> > semantic difference and if so which one to use in this case.
>
> The message style guidelines specifically discourage the use of "may",
&
of the two is
> > better (so change all messages to use that form), or if there's a
> > semantic difference and if so which one to use in this case.
>
> The message style guidelines specifically discourage the use of "may",
> IMHO for good reason. "mumble may
Hi,
On 2019-04-30 10:58:13 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I have this two message patches that I've been debating with myself
> about:
>
> --- a/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
> +++ b/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
> @@ -1282,7 +1282,7 @@ heap_getnext(TableScanDesc sscan, ScanDirection
> dir
I have this two message patches that I've been debating with myself
about:
--- a/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
+++ b/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
@@ -1282,7 +1282,7 @@ heap_getnext(TableScanDesc sscan, ScanDirection direction)
if (unlikely(sscan->rs_rd->rd_tableam != GetHeapamTableA
