| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Inconsistency in determining the timestamp of the db statfile. |
| Date: | 2020-09-11 02:52:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+xd30Knn-iExiejNNvZLq9PJ6uyvqDacDrL=zgiUnWmg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 6:42 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 2020-Sep-10, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 1:03 PM Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>
> > The comments already say what you said in the second suggestion:"The
> > caller must rely on timestamp stored in *ts iff the function returns
> > true.". Read iff "as if and only if"
>
> I think "must" should be "may" there, if we're nitpicking.
>
Here, we want to say that "caller can rely on *ts only if the function
returns true". If we replace 'must' with 'may' then it seems to me we
are trying to say that caller can ignore the timestamp value, if so,
why at first place caller has called this function.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-09-11 02:58:24 | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-09-11 02:40:06 | Re: SIGQUIT handling, redux |