Re: Outdated comments about proc->sem in lwlock.c

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Thomas Munro
Тема Re: Outdated comments about proc->sem in lwlock.c
Дата
Msg-id CA+hUKG+NaNp1+8709Afn8q2DHiFxxxY0549cBz4ySBpSwdCB6Q@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответы Re: Outdated comments about proc->sem in lwlock.c  (Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 1:11 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> In passing I noticed that lwlock.c contains 3 comments about bogus
> wakeups due to sharing proc->sem with the heavyweight lock manager and
> ProcWaitForSignal.  Commit 6753333f55e (9.5) switched those things
> from proc->sem to proc->procLatch.  ProcArrayGroupClearXid() and
> TransactionGroupUpdateXidStatus() also use proc->sem though, and I
> haven't studied how those might overlap with with LWLockWait(), so I'm
> not sure what change to suggest.

Here's a patch to remove the misleading comments.

Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: David Rowley
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Fixup some appendStringInfo and appendPQExpBuffer calls
Следующее
От: Justin Pryzby
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: What to call an executor node which lazily caches tuples in a hash table? (GUC)