Re: "38.10.10. Shared Memory and LWLocks" may require a clarification

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: "38.10.10. Shared Memory and LWLocks" may require a clarification
Date: 2023-11-01 06:12:42
Message-ID: ZUHsWltsSbNEmzqL@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 10:33:25AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Sounds pretty much OK to me. Thanks!

The main thing I have found annoying in the patch was the term
"tranche ID", so I have reworded that to use tranche_id to match with
the surroundings and the routines of lwlock.h. LWLockInitialize()
should also be mentioned, as it is as important as the two others.

The result has been applied as fe705ef6fc1d.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Naylor 2023-11-01 06:33:26 Commitfest manager November 2023
Previous Message Richard Guo 2023-11-01 05:55:17 Re: Support "Right Semi Join" plan shapes