On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@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
