| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <rhaas(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Yet another small patch - reorderbuffer.c:1099 |
| Date: | 2016-04-06 10:15:00 |
| Message-ID: | 20160406101500.yn75uifbo67ee4je@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-04-05 11:38:27 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> IMO the code is wrong.
I'm a bit confused how an intentionally duplicated block makes code
wrong...
But whatever, I found it to be clerarer that way, but apparently I'm alone.
> The current arrangement looks bizantine to me, for no reason. If we
> think that one of the two branches might do something additional to the
> list deletion, surely that will be in a separate stanza with its own
> comment; and if we ever want to remove the list deletion from one of the
> two cases (something that strikes me as unlikely) then we will need to
> fix the comment, too.
You realize it's two different lists they're deleted in the different
branches?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-04-06 10:43:52 | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
| Previous Message | Aleksander Alekseev | 2016-04-06 10:07:33 | Re: Yet another small patch - reorderbuffer.c:1099 |