| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, nasbyj(at)amazon(dot)com, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Assertion failure in HEAD and 13 after calling COMMIT in a stored proc |
| Date: | 2021-06-24 00:51:05 |
| Message-ID: | 2559111.1624495865@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:01 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The comment is written in terms of "when can we
>> skip taking a snapshot", while the test in the code is written for
>> the inverse condition "when do we need a snapshot".
> Perhaps that code could have been written as the following, to better
> align with the comments:
> [ invert the variable's meaning ]
Yeah, perhaps. I remember feeling that the code was clearer this
way (because "if (!skip_snapshot)" seems a little backwards).
But it might be better to make the code fit the comment than to
try to invert the description in the comment.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2021-06-24 01:13:55 | Re: Deadlock risk while inserting directly into partition? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-06-24 00:45:40 | Re: Deadlock risk while inserting directly into partition? |