Re: [HACKERS] Out of date comment in predicate.c
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Out of date comment in predicate.c |
Дата | |
Msg-id | e58a6e4f-d5c8-cceb-1594-c08d50877c09@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Out of date comment in predicate.c (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/6/17 21:06, Thomas Munro wrote: > 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. Committed and backpatched to 9.4. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: