Re: [HACKERS] Out of date comment in predicate.c

On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 6/27/17 01:21, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> Commit ea9df812d8502fff74e7bc37d61bdc7d66d77a7f got rid of
>> FirstPredicateLockMgrLock, but it's still referred to in a comment in
>> predicate.c where the locking protocol is documented.  I think it's
>> probably best to use the name of the macro that's usually used to
>> access the lock array in the code.  Please see attached.
>
> Does this apply equally to PredicateLockHashPartitionLock() and
> PredicateLockHashPartitionLockByIndex()?  Should the comment mention or
> imply both?

Yeah, I guess so.  How about listing the hashcode variant, as it's the
more commonly used and important for a reader to understand of the
two, but mentioning the ByIndex variant in a bullet point below?  Like
this.

-- 
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers