On July 3, 2015 09:24:36 PM Jan de Visser wrote:
> On July 3, 2015 06:21:09 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > BTW, this version of this patch neglects to update the comments in
> > miscadmin.h, and it makes the return convention for
> > ProcessConfigFileInternal completely unintelligible IMO; the inaccuracy
> > and inconsistency in the comments is a symptom of that. I didn't read it
> > in enough detail to say whether there are other problems.
>
> OK, miscadmin.h. I'll go and look what that's all about. And would it make
> sense to find a better solution for the ProcessConfigFileInternal return
> value (which is convoluted, I agree - I went for the solution with the
> least impact on existing code), or should I improve documentation?
>
Heh. I actually touched that file. I completely missed those comments (or saw
them, thought that I should update them, and then forgot about them - just as
likely). I'll obviously fix this if we carry this to completion.