Re: [PATCH] LockAcquireExtended improvement

From: "Jingxian Li" <aqktjcm(at)qq(dot)com>
To: "Will Mortensen" <will(at)extrahop(dot)com>, robertmhaas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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 09:10:38
Message-ID: tencent_AE64BE730FBC43877B605370E60178C5D407@qq.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2024/5/18 14:38, Will Mortensen wrote:
> 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.

Nice catch! The patch looks good to me.

--
Jingxian Li

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2024-05-18 10:22:58 Re: allow sorted builds for btree_gist
Previous Message Andrey M. Borodin 2024-05-18 06:51:00 Re: allow sorted builds for btree_gist