Re: Fixing typos in tests of partition_info.sql - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Langote
Subject Re: Fixing typos in tests of partition_info.sql
Date
Msg-id 71a1cd2f-8d25-5f99-f02d-230f25340471@lab.ntt.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fixing typos in tests of partition_info.sql  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: Fixing typos in tests of partition_info.sql  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2018/12/17 18:10, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 05:56:08PM +0900, Amit Langote wrote:
>> You're saying that we should use plural "functions" because there of 2
>> *instances* of calling the function pg_partition_tree in the queries that
>> follow the comment, but I think that would be misleading.  I think the
>> plural would make sense if we're talking about two different functions,
>> but I may be wrong.
> 
> Or this could just use "Function calls"?

As far as the information content of this comment is concerned, I think
it'd be more useful to word this comment such that it is applicable to
different functions than to word it such that it is applicable to
different queries.  More opinions would be nice.

> My argument is just to not
> forget about updating this comment later on and minimize future noise
> diffs.

Okay, how about:

-- Various partitioning-related functions return NULL if passed relations
-- of types that cannot be part of a partition tree; for example, views,
-- materialized views, etc.

Thanks,
Amit



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: amul sul
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER INDEX ... ALTER COLUMN not present in dump
Next
From: "Matsumura, Ryo"
Date:
Subject: RE: [suggestion]support UNICODE host variables in ECPG