Re: Misleading comment in prologue of ReorderBufferQueueMessage

On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 8:00 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 11:25 AM Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:14 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 2:45 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> >> <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The name of the function suggests that the given message will be
> queued in ReorderBuffer. The prologue of the function says so too
> >> > 776 /*
> >> > 777 * Queue message into a transaction so it can be processed upon
> commit.
> >> > 778 */
> >> > It led me to think that a non-transactional message is processed
> along with the surrounding transaction, esp. when it has an associated xid.
> >> >
> >> > But in reality, the function queues only a transactional message and
> decoders a non-transactional message immediately without waiting for a
> commit.
> >> >
> >> > We should modify the prologue to say
> >> > "Queue a transactional message into a transaction so that it can be
> processed upon commit. A non-transactional message is processed
> immediately." and also change the name of the function to
> ReorderBufferProcessMessage(), but the later may break API compatibility.
> >> >
> >>
> >> +1 for the comment change but I am not sure if it is a good idea to
> >> change the API name.
> >>
> > Can you please review wording? I will create a patch with updated
> wording.
> >
>
> How about something like below:
> A transactional message is queued to be processed upon commit and a
> non-transactional message gets processed immediately.
>

Used this one. PFA patch.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh