| From: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal for Signal Detection Refactoring |
| Date: | 2018-11-29 19:47:42 |
| Message-ID: | CA+q6zcUQESfnBtfrbz4q_yg=K2xzrVOLu9UC-81YOsmVw8PGJA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 7:10 PM Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> More generally, I'd like this material to be code comments. It's the
>> kind of stuff that gets outdated before long if it's kept separate.
>
> The problem is that code comments are not going to be good places to document "how do I check for pending actions?" That could be moved to the main SGML I guess.....
I aggree with Peter here, for me it also feels more natural to have this
information as code commentaries - at least if I would search for it that would
be my first thought. As for "how do I..." part, I think there are alreasy
similar commentaries in the code, which makes sense - this kind of questions
usually appear when you're reading/writing some code.
It doesn't look like there is much left to do in this discussion, but for now
I'll move it to the next CF.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sergei Agalakov | 2018-11-29 20:12:24 | Re: [PROPOSAL] extend the object names to the qualified names in pg_stat_statements |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-11-29 19:46:54 | Re: [PROPOSAL] extend the object names to the qualified names in pg_stat_statements |