Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 06:42:03PM +0200, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
I'm reading some comment on CVS and I seen this comment for tab-complete.c revision 1.109:
Fix subtransaction behavior for large objects, temp namespace, files, password/group files. Also allow read-only subtransactions of a read-write parent, but not vice versa. These are the reasonably noncontroversial parts of Alvaro's recent mop-up patch, plus further work on large objects to minimize use of the TopTransactionResourceOwner.
but the modification on that file have noting to see with this.
Is it normal ?
Yeah. I included your tab-complete patch in the patch I sent to pgsql-patches, which later Tom reworked and applied. His CVS comment didn't mention the tab completion change. This isn't surprising at all, as minor changes go uncommented sometimes when they are surrounded by bigger changes (like the large object work).
Understood. Why not comment each file separately too much work with CVS? I do not have experience with CVS ( at work I user Clearcase ) and for my personal purpose I use subversion ( any plans to migrate the CVS repository to subversion or even bitkeeper ? ).
Regards Gaetano Mendola
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
