Re: Remove stale XXX comment in logical launcher

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>
Cc: "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Remove stale XXX comment in logical launcher
Date: 2026-09-03 12:07:16
Message-ID: CAA4eK1L2NaVOGt7uWFMRqBr+GXP28mDNxhgYrW59xfX+ZfnRQQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 11:56 AM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2026 at 9:12 AM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)
> <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I noticed one comment in the launcher that can be removed:
> >
> > if (!retain_dead_tuples)
> > /* XXX unclear why we don't request logical decoding disable */
> > ReplicationSlotDropAcquired(false);
> >
> > Since the conflict detection slot is a physical one, there is no logical
> > decoding state to disable when dropping it.
>
> I agree. However, the comments never mention that this is a physical
> slot, making it easy to misconstrue it as a logical one. Do you think
> we can add the keyword 'physical' in the comment above this Drop()
> or/and above CreateConflictDetectionSlot or/and above macro
> CONFLICT_DETECTION_SLOT?
>

Adding such a comment at the time of creation sounds reasonable to me.
I would still like to check with Alvaro who added this comment in
commit 2af1dc89282bea681201cf66e2bb32537294e623 whether such a comment
would make it easier to follow this part of code?

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message cca5507 2026-09-03 12:11:02 [PATCH] Allow bare library names for non-superuser LOAD
Previous Message Sami Imseih 2026-09-03 12:04:00 Re: pgstat: Flush some statistics within running transactions, take 2