Fix typo kill_prio_tuple

Started by Zhang Mingliover 3 years ago2 messages
#1Zhang Mingli
zmlpostgres@gmail.com
1 attachment(s)

Hi,

Found a typo in mvcc.sql

typo kill_prio_tuple -> kill_prior_tuple

Regards,
Zhang Mingli

Attachments:

vn-0001-Fix-typo-kill_prio_tuple-to-kill_prior_tuple.patchapplication/octet-streamDownload
From 57bb3b21c6ab45bfc140ab7e7e12c1449a5ca84e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mingli Zhang <avamingli@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022 15:51:40 +0800
Subject: [PATCH vn] Fix typo kill_prio_tuple to kill_prior_tuple

---
 src/test/regress/expected/mvcc.out | 2 +-
 src/test/regress/sql/mvcc.sql      | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/test/regress/expected/mvcc.out b/src/test/regress/expected/mvcc.out
index 16ed4ddf2d..225c39f64f 100644
--- a/src/test/regress/expected/mvcc.out
+++ b/src/test/regress/expected/mvcc.out
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 --
 -- Verify that index scans encountering dead rows produced by an
 -- aborted subtransaction of the current transaction can utilize the
--- kill_prio_tuple optimization
+-- kill_prior_tuple optimization
 --
 -- NB: The table size is currently *not* expected to stay the same, we
 -- don't have logic to trigger opportunistic pruning in cases like
diff --git a/src/test/regress/sql/mvcc.sql b/src/test/regress/sql/mvcc.sql
index b22a86dc5e..0a3ebc88f3 100644
--- a/src/test/regress/sql/mvcc.sql
+++ b/src/test/regress/sql/mvcc.sql
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 --
 -- Verify that index scans encountering dead rows produced by an
 -- aborted subtransaction of the current transaction can utilize the
--- kill_prio_tuple optimization
+-- kill_prior_tuple optimization
 --
 -- NB: The table size is currently *not* expected to stay the same, we
 -- don't have logic to trigger opportunistic pruning in cases like
-- 
2.34.1

#2Daniel Gustafsson
daniel@yesql.se
In reply to: Zhang Mingli (#1)
Re: Fix typo kill_prio_tuple

On 22 Aug 2022, at 09:57, Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:

Found a typo in mvcc.sql

typo kill_prio_tuple -> kill_prior_tuple

Correct, that should be kill_prior_tuple. I'll apply this in a bit.

--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/