| From: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz |
| Cc: | rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: An obsolete comment of pg_stat_statements |
| Date: | 2022-01-04 00:54:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20220104.095420.2071024568329425343.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
At Mon, 3 Jan 2022 17:36:25 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote in
> On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 09:02:10PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > Do we really need to have this comment in the function header? The
> > same is explained a couple of lines down so this feels like a
> > duplicate, and it is hard to miss it with the code shaped as-is (aka
> > the relationship between compute_query_id and queryId and the
> > consequences on what's stored in this case).
>
> The simpler the better here. So, I have just removed this comment
> after thinking more about this.
I'm fine with it. Thanks!
regards.
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2022-01-04 01:29:31 | Re: more descriptive message for process termination due to max_slot_wal_keep_size |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2022-01-04 00:42:32 | Re: [PoC] Delegating pg_ident to a third party |