Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)
От | Ranier Vilela |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEudQAqdXE3m71J4_sKRn-1YPVEy8oVhAERA5Wfy2-9KXmw2mg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c) (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Signed vs Unsigned (take 2) (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Em qua., 15 de set. de 2021 às 01:08, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> escreveu:
On 2021/09/11 12:21, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> On 2021/07/23 20:07, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>> Em sex., 23 de jul. de 2021 às 07:02, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com <mailto:aleksander@timescale.com>> escreveu:
>>
>> Hi hackers,
>>
>> The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
>> make installcheck-world: tested, passed
>> Implements feature: tested, passed
>> Spec compliant: tested, passed
>> Documentation: tested, passed
>>
>> The patch was tested on MacOS against master `80ba4bb3`.
>>
>> The new status of this patch is: Ready for Committer
>>
>>
>> The second patch seems fine too. I'm attaching both patches to trigger cfbot and to double-check them.
>>
>> Thanks Aleksander, for reviewing this.
>
> I looked at these patches because they are marked as ready for committer.
> They don't change any actual behavior, but look valid to me in term of coding.
> Barring any objection, I will commit them.
> No need to backpatch, why this patch is classified as
> refactoring only.
I found this in the commit log in the patch. I agree that these patches
are refactoring ones. But I'm thinking that it's worth doing back-patch,
to make future back-patching easy. Thought?
Thanks for picking this.
I don't see anything against it being more work for the committer.
regards,
Ranier Vilela
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: