From: | Will Mortensen <will(at)extrahop(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jingxian Li <aqktjcm(at)qq(dot)com>, andres <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] LockAcquireExtended improvement |
Date: | 2024-05-18 06:38:35 |
Message-ID: | CAMpnoC7uymaewKschMUy5703xfi31ivjZiFKyurjQ=MWqLnP-Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 7:14 PM Will Mortensen <will(at)extrahop(dot)com> wrote:
> This comment on ProcSleep() seems to have the values of dontWait
> backward (double negatives are tricky):
>
> * Result: PROC_WAIT_STATUS_OK if we acquired the lock,
> PROC_WAIT_STATUS_ERROR
> * if not (if dontWait = true, this is a deadlock; if dontWait = false, we
> * would have had to wait).
>
> Also there's a minor typo in a comment in LockAcquireExtended():
>
> * Check the proclock entry status. If dontWait = true, this is an
> * expected case; otherwise, it will open happen if something in the
> * ipc communication doesn't work correctly.
>
> "open" should be "only".
Here's a patch fixing those typos.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v1-0001-Fix-typos-from-LOCK-NOWAIT-improvement.patch | application/octet-stream | 1.6 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrey M. Borodin | 2024-05-18 06:51:00 | Re: allow sorted builds for btree_gist |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2024-05-18 05:29:12 | Re: race condition when writing pg_control |