Re: Wrong defeinition of pq_putmessage_noblock since 9.5

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Wrong defeinition of pq_putmessage_noblock since 9.5
Date: 2016-07-28 14:46:00
Message-ID: 4313.1469717160@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 3. Several source comments in pqcomm.c have not been updated.
> Some comments still use the old function name like pq_putmessage().

> Attached patch fixes the above issues.

I dunno, this seems like it's doubling down on some extremely poor
decisions. Why is it that you now have to flip a coin to guess whether
the prefix is pq_ or socket_ for functions in this module? I would
rather see that renaming reverted.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vladimir Sitnikov 2016-07-28 14:53:44 Re: Why we lost Uber as a user
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-07-28 14:12:16 Re: LWLocks in DSM memory