Re: Stale references to guc.c in comments/tests

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Stale references to guc.c in comments/tests
Date: 2023-02-28 22:52:46
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 27 Feb 2023, at 17:59, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> The grammar is a bit off ("the GUC definition" would read better),
> but really I think the wording was vague already and we should tighten
> it up. Can we specify exactly which GUC variable(s) we're talking about?

Specifying the GUCs in question is a good idea, done in the attached. I'm not
sure the phrasing is spot-on though, but I can't think of a better one. If you
can think of a better one I'm all ears.

Daniel Gustafsson

Attachment Content-Type Size
v3-0001-Fix-outdated-references-to-guc.c.patch application/octet-stream 6.5 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Regina Obe 2023-02-28 22:59:16 RE: Ability to reference other extensions by schema in extension scripts
Previous Message Jacob Champion 2023-02-28 22:47:09 Re: RFC: logical publication via inheritance root?