Re: [PATCH] LockAcquireExtended improvement

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 1:15 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seeing no further discussion, I have committed my version of this
> patch, with your test case.

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".