| From: | Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: remove reset_shared() |
| Date: | 2022-07-15 12:48:54 |
| Message-ID: | CALT9ZEH_v33xfJpNjY+BtrYpyvDqPZ8xHCdzjbK21S8XGAUJeQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 at 16:41, Maxim Orlov <orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> In general I'm for this patch. Some time ago I was working on a patch
> related to shared memory and noticed
> no reason to have reset_shared() function.
>
Hi, hackers!
I see the proposed patch as uncontroversial and good enough to be
committed. It will make the code a little clearer. Personally, I don't like
leaving functions that are just wrappers for another and called only once.
But I think that if there's a question of code readability it's not bad to
restore the comments on the purpose of a call that were originally in the
code.
PFA v2 of a patch (only the comment removed in v1 is restored in v2).
Overall I'd like to move it to RfC if none have any objections.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-Remove-a-wrapper-for-CreateSharedMemoryAndSemapho.patch | application/octet-stream | 2.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-07-15 13:03:34 | Re: Allowing REINDEX to have an optional name |
| Previous Message | Maxim Orlov | 2022-07-15 12:40:47 | Re: remove reset_shared() |