Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Lock compatibility matrix

From: "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Lock compatibility matrix
Date: 2007-01-30 11:06:57
Message-ID: 2e78013d0701300306va013260xc423d0ad6bc5dbdc@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
On 1/30/07, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>
> Pavan Deolasee wrote:
> > I had this in a different form, but reworked so that it matches the
> > doc patch that Teodor submitted earlier. I think it would be good to
> > have this information in the lock.h file as well.
>
> Why would we want to have two redundant copies of the same information?


IMHO its useful to have this information in the source code, just like many
other comments. It improves the readability of the code while documentation
acts as a reference.

But I am not sure whats the generally accepted practice for PostgresQL,
so I may be wrong here.

Thanks,
Pavan

-- 

EnterpriseDB     http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2007-01-30 11:19:12
Subject: Phantom Command IDs, updated patch
Previous:From: Guido GoldsteinDate: 2007-01-30 10:43:52
Subject: Re: pgsql: Fix for plpython functions; return true/false for boolean,

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group