Re: pg_config_h.in not up-to-date

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_config_h.in not up-to-date
Date: 2021-02-19 14:57:22
Message-ID: 3026887.1613746642@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 02:21:21AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> +1, but I think the first period in this comment is redundant:
>> + AC_DEFINE([USE_OPENSSL], 1, [Define to 1 to build with OpenSSL support. (--with-ssl=openssl).])

> I guess that you mean the second period here to be more consistent
> with the others? That would mean the following diff:
> + AC_DEFINE([USE_OPENSSL], 1, [Define to 1 to build with OpenSSL support. (--with-ssl=openssl)])

Hm. It should be consistent with the rest, for sure. Personally I'd put
the only period at the end, but I suppose we should stick with the
prevailing style if there is one.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jan Wieck 2021-02-19 15:13:36 Re: Extensibility of the PostgreSQL wire protocol
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2021-02-19 14:54:34 Re: Finding cause of test fails on the cfbot site