Обсуждение: Minor spelling fix in memnodes.h

On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 at 20:39, Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghackers@gmail.com> wrote:
> Came across this spelling error alloced -> allocated.
> Patch for the fix is attached.

I suspect it is written as Tom intended it. The callback function in
MemoryContextMethods is called 'alloc' so I guess "alloced" is the
function name as a verb.

Maybe it's worth changing if there's confusion.

David

> On 17 Oct 2025, at 11:18, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 at 20:39, Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghackers@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Came across this spelling error alloced -> allocated.
>> Patch for the fix is attached.
>
> I suspect it is written as Tom intended it.

+1, that was my conclusion as well.  While I'm personally not a fan of the use,
there are more comments using it as well as variables and struct members.

--
Daniel Gustafsson

David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 at 20:39, Rafia Sabih <rafia.pghackers@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Came across this spelling error alloced -> allocated.
>> Patch for the fix is attached.

> I suspect it is written as Tom intended it. The callback function in
> MemoryContextMethods is called 'alloc' so I guess "alloced" is the
> function name as a verb.

Yeah, it's not a typo but an intentional abbreviation.  Having said
that, I don't have any objection to changing it, especially since
there's now a use of "allocated" just two lines away.

I suspect that I shortened it to "alloced" in service of keeping the
comment on one line ... but it looks like it'd still fit if we added
the additional two characters.

            regards, tom lane

On Sat, 18 Oct 2025 at 03:37, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> > I suspect it is written as Tom intended it. The callback function in
> > MemoryContextMethods is called 'alloc' so I guess "alloced" is the
> > function name as a verb.
>
> Yeah, it's not a typo but an intentional abbreviation.  Having said
> that, I don't have any objection to changing it, especially since
> there's now a use of "allocated" just two lines away.

Sounds good. I've pushed the patch.

David