On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 1:06 PM James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 5:53 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >
> > I gave this a very quick look; I don't claim to understand it or
> > anything, but I thought these trivial cleanups worthwhile. The only
> > non-cosmetic thing is changing order of arguments to the SOn_printf()
> > calls in 0008; I think they are contrary to what the comment says.
>
> Yes, I think you're correct (re: 0008).
>
> They all look generally good to me, and are included in the attached
> patch series.
I just realized something about this (unsure if in Alvaro's or in my
applying that) broke make check pretty decently (3 test files broken,
also much slower, and the incremental sort test returns a lot of
obviously broken results).
I'll take a look tomorrow and hopefully get a fix (probably will reply
to the more recent subthread's though).
James
