| From: | Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: A out of date comment of WaitForWALToBecomeAvailable |
| Date: | 2026-03-03 00:45:54 |
| Message-ID: | 87zf4pu4ca.fsf@163.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi All,
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2026 at 10:37:43AM +0800, Xuneng Zhou wrote:
>> WaitForWALToBecomeAvailable can also return XLREAD_WOULDBLOCK when the
>> caller set nonblocking. The comment only talks about XLREAD_FAIL vs
>> “waits in standby,” so it still doesn’t describe that third outcome.
>> That omission pre-dates this patch, should we expand the comment
>> mention the nonblocking case as well?
>
> The outcome related to XLREAD_WOULDBLOCK is implied in the last
> sentence of the comment block standing at the top of the function,
> which seems OK to me.
Thank you for the double check, I personally prefer to keep
XLREAD_WOULDBLOCK as it it.
--
Best Regards
Andy Fan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2026-03-03 01:08:19 | Re: Reduce planning time for large NOT IN lists containing NULL |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2026-03-03 00:28:56 | Re: doc: Clarify that empty COMMENT string removes the comment |