Re: Fix incorrect buffer lock description in pg_visibility comment

From: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Fix incorrect buffer lock description in pg_visibility comment
Date: 2026-01-05 23:44:56
Message-ID: 1F660F7C-347D-4229-905D-44414B855983@gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On Jan 6, 2026, at 02:41, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I find that "shared locked" sounds unnatural to me. How about
> rephrasing to "... we're holding the buffer locked in shared mode”?

Hi Masahiko-san,

Thanks for taking care of this patch. Yeah, I agree “shared locked” is not good, at least it should be “shared-ly locked”. So, Your version, “locked in shared mode” is better.

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Niyaz Hazigaleyev 2026-01-05 23:50:30 Re: [PATCH] meson: Update meson to enable building postgres as a subproject
Previous Message Peter Smith 2026-01-05 23:29:09 Re: Should we say "wal_level = logical" instead of "wal_level >= logical"