On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> OK, I see. Fixing comments in the back-branches is not always a
>> productive use of time, and in general I might like it if you pushed
>> for such things less frequently. But I've do
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> OK, I see. Fixing comments in the back-branches is not always a
> productive use of time, and in general I might like it if you pushed
> for such things less frequently. But I've done it anyway in this
> instance.
I guess I favor doing it wh
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> This comment doesn't make sense to me:
>>
>> +* (TSS_BUILDRUNS state prevents control reaching here in any
>> +* case).
>>
>> Unless I'm missing somethin
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> This comment doesn't make sense to me:
>
> +* (TSS_BUILDRUNS state prevents control reaching here in any
> +* case).
>
> Unless I'm missing something, that's not actually true.
It is true. consider_abort_common(
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Attached are a couple of patches that only change code comments. The
> first (abort abbreviation) patch is recommended for backpatch to 9.5.
> The second is a tiny tweak.
This comment doesn't make sense to me:
+* (TSS_BUIL
Attached are a couple of patches that only change code comments. The
first (abort abbreviation) patch is recommended for backpatch to 9.5.
The second is a tiny tweak.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From b49bc2ce0b83bc5e4c33c5728f885058ab52cdae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date: Sat, 31 Oct
