Typo about subxip in comments

From: Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Typo about subxip in comments
Date: 2022-11-11 03:26:13
Message-ID: MEYP282MB1669DCE7AC193A947CED2A95B6009@MEYP282MB1669.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


Hi, hackers

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.
*

--
Regrads,
Japin Li.
ChengDu WenWu Information Technology Co.,Ltd.

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2022-11-11 03:44:55 Re: New strategies for freezing, advancing relfrozenxid early
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2022-11-11 02:59:58 Re: Reducing the WAL overhead of freezing in VACUUM by deduplicating per-tuple freeze plans