Обсуждение: copy-past-o comment in lock.h

Attached is an attempt to match surrounding code. More broadly,
though, it seems the "ID info" comments belong with the SET_LOCKTAG_*
macros rather than with the LockTagType enum members.

-- 
John Naylor                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 03:41:50PM +0800, John Naylor wrote:
> Attached is an attempt to match surrounding code. More broadly,
> though, it seems the "ID info" comments belong with the SET_LOCKTAG_*
> macros rather than with the LockTagType enum members.

+   LOCKTAG_SPECULATIVE_TOKEN,  /* for speculative insertion */
+   /* ID info for a speculative token is TRANSACTION info + token */
Shouldn't the first comment be just "speculative insertion"?  And the
second one "ID info for a speculative insertion is transaction ID +
its speculative insert counter"?
--
Michael

On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 4:00 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 03:41:50PM +0800, John Naylor wrote:
> > Attached is an attempt to match surrounding code. More broadly,
> > though, it seems the "ID info" comments belong with the SET_LOCKTAG_*
> > macros rather than with the LockTagType enum members.
>
> +   LOCKTAG_SPECULATIVE_TOKEN,  /* for speculative insertion */
> +   /* ID info for a speculative token is TRANSACTION info + token */
> Shouldn't the first comment be just "speculative insertion"?

That's probably better.

> And the
> second one "ID info for a speculative insertion is transaction ID +
> its speculative insert counter"?

I was just going by the variable name at hand, but more precision may be good.

-- 
John Naylor                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 04:12:31PM +0800, John Naylor wrote:
> That's probably better.

Would you like to send an updated patch?  Perhaps you have a better
idea?
--
Michael

On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 3:10 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 04:12:31PM +0800, John Naylor wrote:
> > That's probably better.
>
> Would you like to send an updated patch?  Perhaps you have a better
> idea?
> --
> Michael

In the attached, I've used your language, and also moved the comments
closer to the code they are describing. That seems more logical and
future proof.

-- 
John Naylor                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 03:59:36PM +0800, John Naylor wrote:
> In the attached, I've used your language, and also moved the comments
> closer to the code they are describing. That seems more logical and
> future proof.

Good idea to move the comments so what you proposes looks fine to me.
Are there any objections?
--
Michael

On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 05:03:31PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Good idea to move the comments so what you proposes looks fine to me.
> Are there any objections?

Okay, committed.
--
Michael