Re: Typos in the code and README

(I know Daniel mentioned he'd get to these, but the ScanDirection one
was my fault and I needed to clear that off my mind. I did a few
others while on this topic.)

On Fri, 5 Jul 2024 at 05:00, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Please look at another bunch of inconsistencies/orphaned entities I found
> in the tree, with the possible substitutions:
> errmsg_buf -> errormsg_buf
> (coined by 6b18b3fe2)

Fixed.

> NoMovementScanDirectionScans -> NoMovementScanDirection
> (introduced with e9aaf0632, discussed in [1], but still seems inaccurate)

Oops. Fixed.

> XLogReadRecordInternal -> XLogReadRecord
> (from 3f1ce9734, align with a comment above: "Start and end point of last
> record returned by XLogReadRecord().")

Fixed.

> BYPASS_ALLOWCONN -> BGWORKER_BYPASS_ROLELOGINCHECK (see 492217301)

Fixed

> xs_ctup.t_self -> xs_heaptid (see c2fe139c2 and 304532421)

Fixed.

> pgStatShmLookupCache -> pgStatLocal.shmem (coined by 5891c7a8e)

Fixed.

> smgr_fsm_nblocks and smgr_vm_nblocks -> smgr_cached_nblocks
> (see the same comment updated by c5315f4f4)

Heikki fixed in 19de089cd.

> XID becomes older than GlobalXmin -> XID becomes visible to everyone
> (in accordance with dc7420c2c9 src/backend/access/gist/gistutil.c)

I'd need to spend more time to understand this.

> gen-rtab - remove (non-existing since db7d1a7b0)

Daniel fixed in cc59f9d0f.

> BARRIER_SHOULD_CHECK - remove (unused since a3ed4d1ef)

I wasn't sure if nothing else external could be using this. The macro
doesn't use any fields that are now gone, so I'm not confident enough
to remove it. Can Robert confirm?

> EXE_EXT - remove (unused since f06b1c598)

Daniel fixed in 88e3da565.

> endterm - remove
> (see 60c90c16c -- Use xreflabel attributes instead of endterm ...)

I read that commit message and I agree it's now unused. I just didn't
get any vibes from the commit message that it shouldn't ever be used
again. Can Tom confirm?

> xl_commit_ts_set, SizeOfCommitTsSet - remove (unused since 08aa89b32)

I would say it should be removed. I just didn't because the commit I
had pending fitted into the "typos" category and this didn't quite
fit.

I've attached a patch with the remainder.

David