| From: | Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Euler Taveira" <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Nathan Bossart" <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remove an unnecessary blank line on the PQisBusy() comments |
| Date: | 2025-10-24 01:35:51 |
| Message-ID: | 20251024103551.f510319ee96216a738d9154c@sraoss.co.jp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 23 Oct 2025 12:19:03 -0300
"Euler Taveira" <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025, at 12:11 PM, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 08:02:03PM +0900, Yugo Nagata wrote:
> >> I’ve attached a very trivial patch that removes an unnecessary line
> >> after the comments on PQisBusy(), just for consistency with the
> >> surrounding code.
> >
> > Given this line has been there for 28 years (commit edbd513) and isn't
> > hurting anything, I don't see a strong need to change it.
> >
>
> In this same file there are other cases of blank line after comment and before
> function definition. If, in the future, we have an automated tool (pgindent?)
> that removes such blank line(s) after comment and before function definition, I
> would say fix it. That's not the case; I would leave it alone.
Thank you for taking a look at it.
I was just wondering about it, and agree that there's no need to remove it at
this point since it’s harmless.
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Quan Zongliang | 2025-10-24 01:57:51 | Re: Include extension path on pg_available_extensions |
| Previous Message | Peter Smith | 2025-10-24 01:11:20 | Re: Skipping schema changes in publication |