Re: Review: psql include file using relative path

From: Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review: psql include file using relative path
Date: 2011-06-05 17:06:17
Message-ID: BANLkTikdmfGeHHFKqqz3tvmM+BNbdCHJCg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:

> Tweaks applied, but omitted the C variable names as I don't think that adds
> much value.

Your rewordings are fine, but the the article "the" is missing in a
few spots, e.g.
* "uses \ir command" -> "uses the \ir command"
* "to currently processing file" -> "to the currently processing file"
* "same as \i command" -> "same as the \i command"

I think "processing" is better (and consistent with the rest of the
comments) than "processed" here:
+ * the file from where the currently processed file (if any) is located.

> New version of the patch attached. Thanks for the review.

I think the patch is in pretty good shape now. The memory leak is gone
AFAICT, and the comments and documentation updates look good.

Josh

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2011-06-05 17:45:41 Re: SIREAD lock versus ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-06-05 15:51:48 Re: Assert failure when rechecking an exclusion constraint