Re: [HACKERS] incorrect libpq comment
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 01:16:28PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> Bruce's commit 5d305d86bd917723f09ab4f15c075d90586a210a back in April >> of 2014 includes this change: >> >> /* See PQconnectPoll() for how we use 'int' and not 'pgsocket'. */ >> -int sock; /* Unix FD for socket, -1 if not connected >> */ >> +pgsocketsock; /* FD for socket, PGINVALID_SOCKET if >> unconnected */ >> >> I suppose Bruce must have overlooked the fact that the comment on the >> previous line is now false. I think we should remove it, because it >> makes no sense to say how we are using 'int' rather than 'pgsocket' >> when in fact we are not using 'int' any more. > > Agreed. Great. Nuked it. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] incorrect libpq comment
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 01:16:28PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > Bruce's commit 5d305d86bd917723f09ab4f15c075d90586a210a back in April > of 2014 includes this change: > > /* See PQconnectPoll() for how we use 'int' and not 'pgsocket'. */ > -int sock; /* Unix FD for socket, -1 if not connected */ > +pgsocketsock; /* FD for socket, PGINVALID_SOCKET if > unconnected */ > > I suppose Bruce must have overlooked the fact that the comment on the > previous line is now false. I think we should remove it, because it > makes no sense to say how we are using 'int' rather than 'pgsocket' > when in fact we are not using 'int' any more. Agreed. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
