fix a spelling mistake
Hackorum builds and tests every patch posted to the lists, not only commitfest submissions. This is Hackorum's own CI rather than the PostgreSQL project's, and it is still under testing - please report anything that looks wrong.
You can run a PostgreSQL built from this patch straight from Docker, with no checkout and no build:
docker run --rm -p 5432:5432 ghcr.io/hackorum-dev/postgres-patch:t53100psql -h localhost -U postgresBuilt from patchset v1 (message #1), July 27, 2026 at 04:56 AM.
Every patchset is also pushed to a branch of our PostgreSQL fork, so you can check out the same tree CI built. Without a PostgreSQL checkout:
git clone --branch t53100_1 https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitIn a checkout you already have, add the fork once:
git remote add hackorum https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitthen, for this patchset and every later one:
git fetch hackorum t53100_1 && git checkout t53100_1Patchset v1 (message #1) is on t53100_1
Hi Hackers,
When I was reading the comment of the function bt_report_duplicate(), I discovered a spelling mistake. Therefore, I sent a patch to fix this issue.
Regards,
Yang Yuanzhuo
On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 08:58:06AM +0800, yangyz wrote:
When I was reading the comment of the function
bt_report_duplicate(), I discovered a spelling mistake. Therefore, I
sent a patch to fix this issue.
Thanks for the report. I have grabbed this fix and will apply all
these things once the stack gets bigger.
--
Michael
On Jan 16, 2026, at 11:19, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 08:58:06AM +0800, yangyz wrote:
When I was reading the comment of the function
bt_report_duplicate(), I discovered a spelling mistake. Therefore, I
sent a patch to fix this issue.Thanks for the report. I have grabbed this fix and will apply all
these things once the stack gets bigger.
--
Michael
Hi Michael,
I can add a couple to your stack:
1 - This one I ever reported, but was missed in 94a24b4ee5a
```
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/extension.c b/src/backend/commands/extension.c
index 596105ee078..a9529692ae3 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/extension.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/extension.c
@@ -2398,7 +2398,7 @@ pg_available_extension_versions(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) /*
* Ignore already-found names. They are not reachable by the
- * path search, so don't shown them.
+ * path search, so don't show them.
*/
extname_str = makeString(extname);
if (list_member(found_ext, extname_str))
```2 - I happened to notice this one yesterday while reviewing your patch, but I hesitated to file a trivial patch, so I didn’t.
```
diff --git a/src/backend/statistics/extended_stats_funcs.c b/src/backend/statistics/extended_stats_funcs.c
index b4b1bf26463..c0af146451e 100644
--- a/src/backend/statistics/extended_stats_funcs.c
+++ b/src/backend/statistics/extended_stats_funcs.c
@@ -120,7 +120,7 @@ delete_pg_statistic_ext_data(Oid stxoid, bool inherited)
HeapTuple oldtup;
bool result = false;- /* Is there already a pg_statistic tuple for this attribute? */
+ /* Is there already a pg_statistic_ext_data tuple for this attribute? */
oldtup = SearchSysCache2(STATEXTDATASTXOID,
ObjectIdGetDatum(stxoid),
BoolGetDatum(inherited));
```Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/
On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 02:54:40PM +0800, Chao Li wrote:
- /* Is there already a pg_statistic tuple for this attribute? */ + /* Is there already a pg_statistic_ext_data tuple for this attribute? */ oldtup = SearchSysCache2(STATEXTDATASTXOID, ObjectIdGetDatum(stxoid), BoolGetDatum(inherited));
Indeed, this one is on me. Thanks for the summary. :)
--
Michael