| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-01-30 11:19:12 | Phantom Command IDs, updated patch |
| Previous Message | Guido Goldstein | 2007-01-30 10:43:52 | Re: pgsql: Fix for plpython functions; return true/false for boolean, |