Re: ensure, not insure

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ensure, not insure
Date: 2023-11-09 11:20:59
Message-ID: CAApHDvriOLWYD47Ga3E6skJjY1EQVeo0NwKqkocN6ZP8oj=AoQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 9 Nov 2023 at 14:22, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2023 at 08:31:28PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> > Those all look fine to me too.
>
> +1.

I've pushed this. I backpatched due to the typo in the fsync GUC
description. I'd have only pushed to master if it were just the
comment typos.

I noticed older versions had another instance of "insure" in a code
comment. I opted to leave that one alone since that file is now gone
in more recent versions.

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2023-11-09 11:25:13 Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the SLRU lock
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2023-11-09 11:04:21 Re: GUC names in messages