pgsql: Minor cleanup for recent SQLSTATE / SQLERRM patch: spell
Log Message:
-----------
Minor cleanup for recent SQLSTATE / SQLERRM patch: spell "successful"
correctly, style fixes.
Modified Files:
--------------
pgsql/src/pl/plpgsql/src:
gram.y (r1.70 -> r1.71)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/pl/plpgsql/src/gram.y.diff?r1=1.70&r2=1.71)
pl_exec.c (r1.139 -> r1.140)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/pl/plpgsql/src/pl_exec.c.diff?r1=1.139&r2=1.140)
pgsql/src/test/regress/expected:
plpgsql.out (r1.29 -> r1.30)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/test/regress/expected/plpgsql.out.diff?r1=1.29&r2=1.30)
pgsql/src/test/regress/sql:
plpgsql.sql (r1.24 -> r1.25)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/test/regress/sql/plpgsql.sql.diff?r1=1.24&r2=1.25)
neilc@svr1.postgresql.org (Neil Conway) writes:
Minor cleanup for recent SQLSTATE / SQLERRM patch: spell "successful"
correctly, style fixes.
I'm not sure you should have done that; IMHO the right thing is for
Bruce to back this patch out and ask for a resubmission, and you just
made it a lot harder for him to do so.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
I'm not sure you should have done that; IMHO the right thing is for
Bruce to back this patch out and ask for a resubmission
I thought about that, but I don't see a need to back out the patch: it
is not fundamentally broken or invasive to the rest of the tree.
Needlessly backing it out and then reapplying an improved version would
seem to only create more CVS traffic.
you just made it a lot harder for him to do so.
*grumble*, due to CVS being completely broken... Attached is the patch I
applied, so if someone wants to revert both changes they can do so more
easily.
-Neil