Horton

Thread

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Make the description of some GUCs more consistent

  1. Inconsistent GUC descriptions

    Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> — 2025-02-18T01:32:40Z

    Hello.

I found that a recent commit (fc069a3a631) introduced an inconsistent
description for a new GUC variable, enable_self_join_elimination. It
is written as "Enable removal of unique self-joins.", whereas similar
variables use "Enables xxx". The attached first patch makes the
message consistent with the typical wording.

While making this fix, I also noticed four other descriptions written
as "Enable xxx". The attached second patch corrects them for
consistency.

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

  2. Re: Inconsistent GUC descriptions

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2025-02-18T05:42:36Z

    On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 10:32:40AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> I found that a recent commit (fc069a3a631) introduced an inconsistent
> description for a new GUC variable, enable_self_join_elimination. It
> is written as "Enable removal of unique self-joins.", whereas similar
> variables use "Enables xxx". The attached first patch makes the
> message consistent with the typical wording.
> 
> While making this fix, I also noticed four other descriptions written
> as "Enable xxx". The attached second patch corrects them for
> consistency.

Keeping it simple..  I agree that your suggestions and your two
patches make things better, so OK for me.  There may be a point in
backpatching as this is user-visible?  Perhaps not.
--
Michael

  3. Re: Inconsistent GUC descriptions

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2025-02-18T23:58:43Z

    On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 02:42:36PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Keeping it simple..  I agree that your suggestions and your two
> patches make things better, so OK for me.  There may be a point in
> backpatching as this is user-visible?  Perhaps not.

Done that as f2e4c2b2039e.
--
Michael