Re: Low hanging fruit in lazy-XID-assignment patch?

"Florian G. Pflug" <fgp@phlo.org> writes:
> I noticed two rather cosmetic issues
> .) latestCompletedXid sounds as it might refer to the *last* completed xid,
> but it actually refers to the largest / highest completed xid. So maybe we
> should call it highestCompletedXid or largestCompletedXid.

Actually that was an intentional choice: because of the wraparound
behavior of XIDs, the "latest" value is not necessarily numerically
largest.  I'm not wedded to it though.

> .) Since you mention that we assume reading and writing int4s are atomic
> operations, maybe we should mention that for safety's sake we mark the
> corresponding pointers with volatile?

Couldn't hurt.

I have a draft patch that I'll post shortly.
        regards, tom lane