On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 1:18 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> Regarding the first hunk, I don't like these INTERFACE sections too
>>> much; they get seriously outdated over the time and aren't all that
>>> helpful anyway. See the one on heapam.c for example. I'd rather get
>>> rid of that one instead of patching it. The rest, of course, merit
>>> revision.
>>
>> +1, as long as we make sure that any useful info therein gets migrated
>> to the per-function header comments rather than dropped. If there's
>> anything that doesn't seem to fit naturally in any per-function comment,
>> maybe move it into the file header comment?
>
> OK, that removes comment duplication. Also, what about replacing
> "bit(s)" by "one or more bits" in the comment terms where adapted?
> That's bikeshedding, but that's what this patch is about.
Translating my thoughts into code, I get the attached.
--
Michael