Re: Out of date comment in predicate.c

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Subject: Re: Out of date comment in predicate.c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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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