| From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fix incorrect buffer lock description in pg_visibility comment |
| Date: | 2025-12-29 18:33:34 |
| Message-ID: | CAD21AoAqTt_+4r7cPsnGG6pB8y7As6eqbjJTENFGzAmuVMQPXg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 23, 2025 at 6:18 PM Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hi Hackers,
>
> While reviewing the patch [1], though I couldn’t raise a comment for it, I noticed a comment error in the file pg_visibility.c, where a buffer lock is held in shared mode but the code comment mentioned exclusive mode. I am filing a small patch to correct the comment.
>
> I only changed "exclusively" to "shared", the format changed was done by pgindent.
Yeah, it seems like a typo since the first commit of pg_visiblity,
e472ce9624e0. I think we can backpatch it to all supported versions.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2025-12-29 18:36:39 | Re: lsyscache: free IndexAmRoutine objects returned by GetIndexAmRoutineByAmId() |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-12-29 18:08:39 | Re: Fixing some ancient errors in hash join costing |