| From: | Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Yet another small patch - reorderbuffer.c:1099 |
| Date: | 2016-04-06 10:07:33 |
| Message-ID: | 20160406130733.686c2764@fujitsu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > IMO the code is wrong. There should be a single block comment
> > saying something like "Remove the node from its containing list.
> > In the FOO case, the list corresponds to BAR and therefore we
> > delete it because BAZ. In the QUUX case the list is PLUGH and we
> > delete in because THUD." Then a single line dlist_delete(...)
> > follows.
> >
> > 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.
>
> +1 to everything here except for the way byzantine is spelled.
>
+1 and yet another patch.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
http://eax.me/
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| reorderbuffer-v2.diff | text/x-patch | 1.0 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-04-06 10:15:00 | Re: Yet another small patch - reorderbuffer.c:1099 |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-04-06 09:52:28 | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |