pgsql: Minor cleanup for recent SQLSTATE / SQLERRM patch: spell

Log Message:
-----------
Minor cleanup for recent SQLSTATE / SQLERRM patch: spell "successful"
correctly, style fixes.

Modified Files:
--------------
pgsql/src/pl/plpgsql/src:
gram.y (r1.70 -> r1.71)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/pl/plpgsql/src/gram.y.diff?r1=1.70&r2=1.71)
pl_exec.c (r1.139 -> r1.140)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/pl/plpgsql/src/pl_exec.c.diff?r1=1.139&r2=1.140)
pgsql/src/test/regress/expected:
plpgsql.out (r1.29 -> r1.30)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/test/regress/expected/plpgsql.out.diff?r1=1.29&r2=1.30)
pgsql/src/test/regress/sql:
plpgsql.sql (r1.24 -> r1.25)
(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/test/regress/sql/plpgsql.sql.diff?r1=1.24&r2=1.25)

neilc(at)svr1(dot)postgresql(dot)org (Neil Conway) writes:
> Minor cleanup for recent SQLSTATE / SQLERRM patch: spell "successful"
> correctly, style fixes.

I'm not sure you should have done that; IMHO the right thing is for
Bruce to back this patch out and ask for a resubmission, and you just
made it a lot harder for him to do so.

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not sure you should have done that; IMHO the right thing is for
> Bruce to back this patch out and ask for a resubmission

I thought about that, but I don't see a need to back out the patch: it
is not fundamentally broken or invasive to the rest of the tree.
Needlessly backing it out and then reapplying an improved version would
seem to only create more CVS traffic.

> you just made it a lot harder for him to do so.

*grumble*, due to CVS being completely broken... Attached is the patch I
applied, so if someone wants to revert both changes they can do so more
easily.

-Neil