Re: Fixing typos in tests of partition_info.sql

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fixing typos in tests of partition_info.sql
Date: 2018-12-17 09:35:03
Message-ID: 71a1cd2f-8d25-5f99-f02d-230f25340471@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018/12/17 18:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 05:56:08PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> You're saying that we should use plural "functions" because there of 2
>> *instances* of calling the function pg_partition_tree in the queries that
>> follow the comment, but I think that would be misleading. I think the
>> plural would make sense if we're talking about two different functions,
>> but I may be wrong.
>
> Or this could just use "Function calls"?

As far as the information content of this comment is concerned, I think
it'd be more useful to word this comment such that it is applicable to
different functions than to word it such that it is applicable to
different queries. More opinions would be nice.

> My argument is just to not
> forget about updating this comment later on and minimize future noise
> diffs.

Okay, how about:

-- Various partitioning-related functions return NULL if passed relations
-- of types that cannot be part of a partition tree; for example, views,
-- materialized views, etc.

Thanks,
Amit

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matsumura, Ryo 2018-12-17 09:55:45 RE: [suggestion]support UNICODE host variables in ECPG
Previous Message amul sul 2018-12-17 09:14:32 Re: ALTER INDEX ... ALTER COLUMN not present in dump