From: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fix incorrect function comment of stringToNodeInternal |
Date: | 2025-09-25 10:09:44 |
Message-ID: | CD945FE8-323D-41A8-80BE-629956BE807D@gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Sep 25, 2025, at 17:54, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>
>> On 25 Sep 2025, at 10:01, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> There are 5 different cases, showing that there is not a unique way for what function name should be put to xxInternal() functions’ comment.
>>
>> Is it deserve to take this opportunity to make all of them in a consistent format?
>
> We don't have a policy on how to do function comments, and none of these
> examples strike me as particularly confusing. I don't think there is much
> value in the churn from changing these from one flavor or another as they
> aren't wrong.
>
Sure, then I withdraw the patch. Thank you very much for helping.
Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2025-09-25 10:17:51 | Re: Add memory_limit_hits to pg_stat_replication_slots |
Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2025-09-25 09:54:30 | Re: Fix incorrect function comment of stringToNodeInternal |