Re: Assertion failure in HEAD and 13 after calling COMMIT in a stored proc

From: Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com>, nasbyj(at)amazon(dot)com, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Assertion failure in HEAD and 13 after calling COMMIT in a stored proc
Date: 2021-06-24 16:05:12
Message-ID: CAEudQAr_Ot80kDGTQGS1xdjZre6ruG76ePRdO_NPGeynUrQBBw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Em qua., 23 de jun. de 2021 às 21:51, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> escreveu:

> Greg Nancarrow <gregn4422(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 11:01 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> The comment is written in terms of "when can we
> >> skip taking a snapshot", while the test in the code is written for
> >> the inverse condition "when do we need a snapshot".
>
> > Perhaps that code could have been written as the following, to better
> > align with the comments:
> > [ invert the variable's meaning ]
>
> Yeah, perhaps. I remember feeling that the code was clearer this
> way (because "if (!skip_snapshot)" seems a little backwards).
> But it might be better to make the code fit the comment than to
> try to invert the description in the comment.
>
I'm not a native speaker, so I would be of little help with clearer and
more elusive comments.
If you both agree that the current code is correct, please correct the
comments.
The current code is much simpler and readable.

regards,
Ranier Vilela

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthias van de Meent 2021-06-24 16:21:45 Re: Iterating on IndexTuple attributes and nbtree page-level dynamic prefix truncation
Previous Message Ranier Vilela 2021-06-24 16:02:49 Re: Assertion failure in HEAD and 13 after calling COMMIT in a stored proc