On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> After off-discussion with Fujii-san, I've updated the comment of why
> we should disallow interrupts before setting/cleanup the session-level
> lock. Please review it.
+ /*
+ * Set session-level lock. If we allow interrupts before setting
+ * session-level lock, we could call callbacks with an inconsistent
+ * state. To avoid calling CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS by LWLockReleaseClearVar
+ * which is called by WALInsertLockRelease before changing the backup
+ * state we change it while holding the WAL insert lock.
+ */
So you are just adding the reference to WALInsertLockRelease.. Instead
of writing the function names for LWLocks, I would just write "To
avoid calling CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS which can happen when releasing a
LWLock" and be done with it. There is no point to list a full function
dependency list, which could change in the future with static routines
of lwlock.c.
--
Michael