Re: small_cleanups around login event triggers
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 7:23 PM Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > > On 14 Mar 2024, at 14:21, Robert Treat wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 8:21 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > >> - canceling connection in psql wouldn't > >> cancel > >> + canceling a connection in psql will not > >> cancel > >> Nitpickery (perhaps motivated by english not being my first language), but > >> since psql only deals with one connection I would expect this to read "the > >> connection". > >> > > > > My interpretation of this is that "a connection" is more correct > > because it could be your connection or someone else's connection (ie, > > you are canceling one of many possible connections). Definitely > > nitpickery either way. > > Fair point. > > >> - * Returns true iff the lock was acquired. > >> + * Returns true if the lock was acquired. > >> Using "iff" here is being consistent with the rest of the file (and > >> technically > >> correct): > > > Ah, yeah, I was pretty focused on the event trigger stuff and didn't > > notice it being used elsewhere; thought it was a typo, but I guess > > it's meant as shorthand for "if and only if", I wonder how many people > > are familiar with that. > > I would like to think it's fairly widely understood among programmers, but I > might be dating myself in saying so. > > I went ahead and applied this with the fixes mentioned here with one more tiny > change to the last hunk of the patch to make it say "login event trigger" > rather than just "login trigger". Thanks for the submission! > LGTM, thanks! Robert Treat https://xzilla.net
Re: small_cleanups around login event triggers
> On 14 Mar 2024, at 14:21, Robert Treat wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 8:21 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> - canceling connection in psql wouldn't cancel >> + canceling a connection in psql will not >> cancel >> Nitpickery (perhaps motivated by english not being my first language), but >> since psql only deals with one connection I would expect this to read "the >> connection". >> > > My interpretation of this is that "a connection" is more correct > because it could be your connection or someone else's connection (ie, > you are canceling one of many possible connections). Definitely > nitpickery either way. Fair point. >> - * Returns true iff the lock was acquired. >> + * Returns true if the lock was acquired. >> Using "iff" here is being consistent with the rest of the file (and >> technically >> correct): > Ah, yeah, I was pretty focused on the event trigger stuff and didn't > notice it being used elsewhere; thought it was a typo, but I guess > it's meant as shorthand for "if and only if", I wonder how many people > are familiar with that. I would like to think it's fairly widely understood among programmers, but I might be dating myself in saying so. I went ahead and applied this with the fixes mentioned here with one more tiny change to the last hunk of the patch to make it say "login event trigger" rather than just "login trigger". Thanks for the submission! -- Daniel Gustafsson
Re: small_cleanups around login event triggers
On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 8:21 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > > On 14 Mar 2024, at 02:47, Robert Treat wrote: > > > I was taking a look at the login event triggers work (nice work btw) > > Thanks for reviewing committed code, that's something which doesn't happen > often enough and is much appreciated. > > > and saw a couple of minor items that I thought would be worth cleaning > > up. This is mostly just clarifying the exiting docs and code comments. > > + either in a connection string or configuration file. Alternativly, you > can > This should be "Alternatively" I think. > Yes. > - canceling connection in psql wouldn't cancel > + canceling a connection in psql will not > cancel > Nitpickery (perhaps motivated by english not being my first language), but > since psql only deals with one connection I would expect this to read "the > connection". > My interpretation of this is that "a connection" is more correct because it could be your connection or someone else's connection (ie, you are canceling one of many possible connections). Definitely nitpickery either way. > - * Returns true iff the lock was acquired. > + * Returns true if the lock was acquired. > Using "iff" here is being consistent with the rest of the file (and > technically > correct): > > $ grep -c "if the lock was" src/backend/storage/lmgr/lmgr.c > 1 > $ grep -c "iff the lock was" src/backend/storage/lmgr/lmgr.c > 5 > Ah, yeah, I was pretty focused on the event trigger stuff and didn't notice it being used elsewhere; thought it was a typo, but I guess it's meant as shorthand for "if and only if", I wonder how many people are familiar with that. Robert Treat https://xzilla.net
Re: small_cleanups around login event triggers
> On 14 Mar 2024, at 02:47, Robert Treat wrote: > I was taking a look at the login event triggers work (nice work btw) Thanks for reviewing committed code, that's something which doesn't happen often enough and is much appreciated. > and saw a couple of minor items that I thought would be worth cleaning > up. This is mostly just clarifying the exiting docs and code comments. + either in a connection string or configuration file. Alternativly, you can This should be "Alternatively" I think. - canceling connection in psql wouldn't cancel + canceling a connection in psql will not cancel Nitpickery (perhaps motivated by english not being my first language), but since psql only deals with one connection I would expect this to read "the connection". - * Returns true iff the lock was acquired. + * Returns true if the lock was acquired. Using "iff" here is being consistent with the rest of the file (and technically correct): $ grep -c "if the lock was" src/backend/storage/lmgr/lmgr.c 1 $ grep -c "iff the lock was" src/backend/storage/lmgr/lmgr.c 5 -- Daniel Gustafsson
