On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 3:52 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Michael Paquier >> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Michael Paquier >>>>> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Agreed. Updated the comment. >>> >>> Robert actually liked adding the complete routine list. Let's see what >>> Fujii-san thinks at the end, there is still some time until the next >>> round of minor releases. >> >> What I think is the patch I attached. Thought? > > That's OK for me. Thanks.
+1 from me. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
