| From: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: trivial designated initializers |
| Date: | 2026-01-30 09:28:02 |
| Message-ID: | 202601300912.ccxqnxxcl72r@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2026-Jan-29, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> You could spruce this up further like
>
> [LockTupleKeyShare] = {
> .hwlock = AccessShareLock,
> ...
> },
Oh right, done that way.
> The comments "/* KeyShare does not allow updating tuples */" etc. seem
> repetitive and don't actually explain why -1 is an appropriate value. You
> could instead write a comment by the declaration of the updstatus field,
> like "set to -1 if the tuple lock mode does not allow updating tuples (see
> get_mxact_status_for_lock())".
Good point. I rewrote the comment on top of the declaration and pushed,
thanks for the reviews.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Hay dos momentos en la vida de un hombre en los que no debería
especular: cuando puede permitírselo y cuando no puede" (Mark Twain)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexandre Felipe | 2026-01-30 09:32:14 | [PATCH] btree merge scan proposal |
| Previous Message | Kirill Reshke | 2026-01-30 09:25:17 | Re: eliminate xl_heap_visible to reduce WAL (and eventually set VM on-access) |