Re: [PATCH] LockAcquireExtended improvement

From: Will Mortensen <will(at)extrahop(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jingxian Li <aqktjcm(at)qq(dot)com>, andres <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LockAcquireExtended improvement
Date: 2024-05-18 06:38:35
Message-ID: CAMpnoC7uymaewKschMUy5703xfi31ivjZiFKyurjQ=MWqLnP-Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 7:14 PM Will Mortensen <will(at)extrahop(dot)com> wrote:
> This comment on ProcSleep() seems to have the values of dontWait
> backward (double negatives are tricky):
>
> * Result: PROC_WAIT_STATUS_OK if we acquired the lock,
> PROC_WAIT_STATUS_ERROR
> * if not (if dontWait = true, this is a deadlock; if dontWait = false, we
> * would have had to wait).
>
> Also there's a minor typo in a comment in LockAcquireExtended():
>
> * Check the proclock entry status. If dontWait = true, this is an
> * expected case; otherwise, it will open happen if something in the
> * ipc communication doesn't work correctly.
>
> "open" should be "only".

Here's a patch fixing those typos.

Attachment Content-Type Size
v1-0001-Fix-typos-from-LOCK-NOWAIT-improvement.patch application/octet-stream 1.6 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrey M. Borodin 2024-05-18 06:51:00 Re: allow sorted builds for btree_gist
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2024-05-18 05:29:12 Re: race condition when writing pg_control