| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Out of date comment in predicate.c |
| Date: | 2017-06-30 18:38:18 |
| Message-ID: | 1a0efd3e-97b7-707e-d851-54cad0118999@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/27/17 01:21, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Commit ea9df812d8502fff74e7bc37d61bdc7d66d77a7f got rid of
> FirstPredicateLockMgrLock, but it's still referred to in a comment in
> predicate.c where the locking protocol is documented. I think it's
> probably best to use the name of the macro that's usually used to
> access the lock array in the code. Please see attached.
Does this apply equally to PredicateLockHashPartitionLock() and
PredicateLockHashPartitionLockByIndex()? Should the comment mention or
imply both?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-06-30 18:41:39 | Re: Incorrect mentions to pg_xlog in walmethods.c/h |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-06-30 18:17:12 | Re: Get stuck when dropping a subscription during synchronizing table |