> Yeah, that would be more correct. The phrase we seem to use elsewhere in <br />> xlog.c is "crossing a logid boundary".<br /><br />Should we change it in 9.2 to clear the confusion? <br /><br />(Attached is a rather small patch tofix that! :) ) <br /><br />-- <br />Amit Langote <br /><div class="small"><br /><img src="/images/icon_attachment.gif"/> <strong>minor-xlog-comment.patch</strong> (914 bytes) <a href="http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/attachment/5754017/0/minor-xlog-comment.patch"link="external" rel="nofollow"target="_top">Download Attachment</a></div><br /><hr align="left" width="300" /> View this message in context:<a href="http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Confusing-comment-in-xlog-c-or-am-I-missing-something-tp5754010p5754017.html">Re: Confusingcomment in xlog.c or am I missing something?</a><br /> Sent from the <a href="http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/PostgreSQL-hackers-f1928748.html">PostgreSQL- hackers mailing list archive</a>at Nabble.com.<br />
pgsql-hackers by date:
Соглашаюсь с условиями обработки персональных данных
