From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Update outdated references to SLRU ControlLock |
Date: | 2025-09-01 05:05:56 |
Message-ID: | aLUptKkboud-OZAw@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 01, 2025 at 11:32:41AM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Note that the main comment of slru.c still has one paragraph that mentions
> "bank control lock" consistently before switching to just "control lock" in the
> next paragraph. I'm assuming that it's ok in that context as it seems clear to
> me that those are the same thing, just spelled with a less verbose name.
Good catch, right.
I am not seeing "control" used much as a term (3 times on HEAD).
There is a lot of "bank lock" or "SLRU bank lock", both being mixed
depending on the parts of the code using SLRUs (multixact, predicates,
etc.).
"SLRU bank lock" speaks a bit better to me, as the concept relates
to.. SLRUs, but that's mostly a matter of taste between the three
wordings, I guess. Do you have a preference?
Not saying that one is better than the other as they're all used, just
noticed the difference in the comments, with all the terms referring
to the same thing.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2025-09-01 05:09:13 | Re: List TAP test files in makefiles |
Previous Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2025-09-01 05:03:18 | Orphan page in _bt_split |