On 2/2/16 1:01 PM, Corey Huinker wrote: > Doh, I left that comment to myself in there. :)
If I had a dime for every time I've done that... > The corresponding structs in timestamp.c and int.c have no comment, so > suggestions of what should be there are welcome. In the interim I put in > this: > > /* state for generate_series_date(date,date,[step]) */ I think that's fine -- whoever commits it may feel otherwise. > Do you have any insight as to why the documentation test failed? > > In the mean time, here's the updated patch. I didn't pass the docs on account of the wonky comment since I consider code comments to be part of the docs. The sgml docs build fine and look good to me. I'll retest and update the review accordingly. -- -David da...@pgmasters.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
