On Fri, Oct 24, 2025 at 9:09 PM Ashutosh Bapat <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 4:49 AM Peter Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 2:11 AM Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 3:20 AM Peter Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Do you have thoughts about the patch? > > > > > > I agree with the rationale that Ashutosh states but I don't see a > > > strong need to patch the code to make this a 100% invariable rule. (Of > > > course, someone else may disagree, which is fine.) > > > > > > > In case it makes any difference... > > > > The codebase already follows this rule in 95% of cases. The patch > > simply corrects a couple of inconsistencies that appeared to be > > accidental oversights. > > I think we should accept comment-only changes in the patch. With those > changes comments are consistent with the code; otherwise code-readers > will get confused. I don't have a strong opinion about the comment + > code changes though. They may wait till changes in [1] get committed. > As Robert said, we may not want that to be an invariable rule. >
OK, here is the same patch split into comment-only changes, and code-changes. ====== Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
v2-0002-fix-wal_level-equality-code.patch
Description: Binary data
v2-0001-fix-wal_level-equality-comments.patch
Description: Binary data
