| From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_proc.h |
| Date: | 2005-11-10 14:48:07 |
| Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4E7DF2C@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Dunstan
> Sent: 10 November 2005 14:30
> To: PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: [HACKERS] pg_proc.h
>
>
> contains the following:
>
> /* ----------------
> * initial contents of pg_proc
> * ----------------
> */
>
> /* keep the following ordered by OID so that later changes
> can be made
> easier */
>
>
> which has manifestly not been followed. Should we fix the
> file or remove
> the second comment?
I vote for fixing the file (but then I'm not doing the work).
Unused_oids or whatevers it's called is fine, but it's still handy to be
able to read the file easily.
Regards, Dave
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2005-11-10 14:56:07 | win32 8.1 pgadmin dll issues |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2005-11-10 14:29:59 | pg_proc.h |