Re: fixing typo in comment for restriction_is_or_clause

From: Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>
To: Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: fixing typo in comment for restriction_is_or_clause
Date: 2022-10-25 05:40:23
Message-ID: MEYP282MB166917CA266844532CE9E237B6319@MEYP282MB1669.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 at 12:01, Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 11:46 AM Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 at 11:07, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Please take a look at patch v2.
>>
>> Maybe we should define those functions in headers. See patch v3.
>
>
> Yes, putting them in .h file is better to me. For the v3 patch, we can
> do the same one-line trick for restriction_is_securely_promotable.
>

Fixed. Please consider the v4 for further review.

--
Regrads,
Japin Li.
ChengDu WenWu Information Technology Co.,Ltd.

Attachment Content-Type Size
v4-is-or.patch text/x-diff 2.9 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2022-10-25 06:11:12 Re: GUC values - recommended way to declare the C variables?
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2022-10-25 05:37:25 Some regression tests for the pg_control_*() functions