On Aug4, 2010, at 13:58 , Florian Pflug wrote: > On Aug3, 2010, at 21:16 , Greg Smith wrote: >>> That was a leftover of the trimming and comment skipping logic, which my >>> patch moves to process_command. >> >> I think there's still a trimming error here--line 195 of the new patch is >> now removing the declaration of "i" just before it sets it to zero? > Hm, I think it's just the diff thats miss-leading there. It correctly marks > the "int i" line as "removed" with a "-", but for some reason marks the "i = > 0" line (and its successors) with a "!", although they're removed too, and > not modified. > >> On the coding standard side, I noticed all your for loops are missing a >> space between the for and the (; that should get fixed. > Fixed
Crap. I've messed up to the effect that the for-loop formatting fix wasn't actually in the patch. Attached is an updated version (v4). Sorry for the noise. best regards, Florian Pflug
pgbench_statementlatency_v4.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
