On 14 January 2016 at 13:16, Julien Rouhaud <julien.rouh...@dalibo.com> wrote: > You're absolutely right, but in this case the comment is more like a > reminder of a bigger comment few lines before that wasn't quoted in my mail
Fair enough, although I have two niggles with that: a) the second comment could become physically separated from the first by later additions of extra code, or by refactoring; b) if you don't need the comment because the explanation for it is local anyway and the comment tells you nothing that the code doesn't, why have it at all? > so I assume it's ok to keep it this way. Of course it's ok to do whatever you decide is best: as I said previously, I fully appreciate that I have no ownership over any of the code. Geoff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
