| From: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Confusing comment in xlog.c or am I missing something? |
| Date: | 2013-05-02 06:50:29 |
| Message-ID: | CA+HiwqFJkOg1mN98vmAwy0nMFq1nfbx89i3kXLY8oU0XcXn+sQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Yeah, that would be more correct. The phrase we seem to use elsewhere in
> xlog.c is "crossing a logid boundary".
Should we change it in 9.2 to clear the confusion?
(Attached is a rather small patch to fix that! :) )
--
Amit Langote
minor-xlog-comment.patch (914 bytes) <http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/attachment/5754017/0/minor-xlog-comment.patch>
--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Confusing-comment-in-xlog-c-or-am-I-missing-something-tp5754010p5754017.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-05-02 06:55:18 | Re: Recovery target 'immediate' |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2013-05-02 06:34:15 | Re: Confusing long option in pg_receivexlog/basebackup/dumpall |