Re: Typo about subxip in comments

On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 10:39:06AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 8:56 AM Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Recently, when I read the XidInMVCCSnapshot(), and find there are some
> > typos in the comments.
> >
> > diff --git a/src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c b/src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c
> > index 207c4b27fd..9e8b6756fe 100644
> > --- a/src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c
> > +++ b/src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c
> > @@ -2409,7 +2409,7 @@ GetSnapshotData(Snapshot snapshot)
> > * We could try to store xids into xip[] first and then into subxip[]
> > * if there are too many xids. That only works if the snapshot doesn't
> > * overflow because we do not search subxip[] in that case. A simpler
> > - * way is to just store all xids in the subxact array because this is
> > + * way is to just store all xids in the subxip array because this is
> > * by far the bigger array. We just leave the xip array empty.
> > *
> > * Either way we need to change the way XidInMVCCSnapshot() works
> > diff --git a/src/backend/utils/time/snapmgr.c b/src/backend/utils/time/snapmgr.c
> > index f1f2ddac17..2524b1c585 100644
> > --- a/src/backend/utils/time/snapmgr.c
> > +++ b/src/backend/utils/time/snapmgr.c
> > @@ -2345,7 +2345,7 @@ XidInMVCCSnapshot(TransactionId xid, Snapshot snapshot)
> > else
> > {
> > /*
> > - * In recovery we store all xids in the subxact array because it is by
> > + * In recovery we store all xids in the subxip array because it is by
> > * far the bigger array, and we mostly don't know which xids are
> > * top-level and which are subxacts. The xip array is empty.
> > *
> >
>
> LGTM.

+1