| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Out of date comment in predicate.c |
| Date: | 2017-07-07 01:06:46 |
| Message-ID: | CAEepm=1LbybmhFgG0cMj5wpZtvBAdtuXgFrzKRBFQU=O_WSjNQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 6/27/17 01:21, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> Commit ea9df812d8502fff74e7bc37d61bdc7d66d77a7f got rid of
>> FirstPredicateLockMgrLock, but it's still referred to in a comment in
>> predicate.c where the locking protocol is documented. I think it's
>> probably best to use the name of the macro that's usually used to
>> access the lock array in the code. Please see attached.
>
> Does this apply equally to PredicateLockHashPartitionLock() and
> PredicateLockHashPartitionLockByIndex()? Should the comment mention or
> imply both?
Yeah, I guess so. How about listing the hashcode variant, as it's the
more commonly used and important for a reader to understand of the
two, but mentioning the ByIndex variant in a bullet point below? Like
this.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| fix-comments-v2.patch | application/octet-stream | 926 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2017-07-07 01:29:26 | Re: New partitioning - some feedback |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2017-07-07 01:06:18 | Re: Multi column range partition table |