From: | Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Comment typo in tableam.h |
Date: | 2019-07-08 16:51:34 |
Message-ID: | CALfoeit_-5xq0srtL2KoSdUC0so5qBDPu1MRcdqwZkuxYCo5dA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 12:05 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:00 AM Ashwin Agrawal <aagrawal(at)pivotal(dot)io> wrote:
> > Please find attached v2 of patch 1 without objectionable comment change.
> v1 of patch 2 attaching here just for convenience, no modifications made to
> it.
> >
>
> 0001*
> * See table_index_fetch_tuple's comment about what the difference between
> - * these functions is. This function is the correct to use outside of
> - * index entry->table tuple lookups.
> + * these functions is. This function is correct to use outside of index
> + * entry->table tuple lookups.
>
> How about if we write the last line of comment as "It is correct to
> use this function outside of index entry->table tuple lookups."? I am
> not an expert on this matter, but I find the way I am suggesting
> easier to read.
>
I am fine with the way you have suggested.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-07-08 16:52:05 | Re: tableam vs. TOAST |
Previous Message | Paul A Jungwirth | 2019-07-08 16:46:44 | Re: range_agg |