Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Date
Msg-id 16566.1440689504@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> As Noah I think it'd be good if we, over time, started to document a few
> more things one currently have to pick up over time. I'm wondering
> whether these should be subsections under a new sect1 ('Code Structure'?
> Don't like that much), or all independent sect1s.

"Structure" is certainly not what this material is.  Maybe "Miscellaneous
Coding Conventions" is the best we can do for a title.  The items seem too
short to be their own <sect1>'s.

> That's not yet perfect, but shows what I'm thinking of. Comments?

Needs a bit of copy-editing in places, but +1 overall.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: What does RIR as in fireRIRrules stand for?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Resource Owner reassign Locks