Re: Update comments in multixact.c

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: "shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Update comments in multixact.c
Date: 2023-01-17 22:03:54
Message-ID: CAH2-WzmM_G9O1QFbY_ixA5bwRqHhfXtav5BpbEb+H3Gfyxg=Nw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 1:33 AM shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<shiy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> I noticed that commit 5212d447fa updated some comments in multixact.c because
> SLRU truncation for multixacts is performed during VACUUM, instead of
> checkpoint. Should the following comments which mentioned checkpointer be
> changed, too?

Yes, I think so.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2023-01-17 22:11:07 Re: Decoupling antiwraparound autovacuum from special rules around auto cancellation
Previous Message Melanie Plageman 2023-01-17 22:00:34 Re: pg_stat_bgwriter.buffers_backend is pretty meaningless (and more?)