On Monday, March 4, 2024 11:44 PM Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 01:28:04PM +0000, Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) wrote: > > Attach the V105 patch set > > Thanks! > > Sorry I missed those during the previous review:
No problem, thanks for the comments! > > 1 === > > Commit message: "these functions will block until" > > s/block/wait/ ? > > 2 === > > + when used with logical failover slots, will block until all > > s/block/wait/ ? > > It seems those are the 2 remaining "block" that could deserve the proposed > above change. I prefer using 'block' here. And it seems others also suggest to change the 'wait'[1]. > > 3 === > > + invalidated = slot->data.invalidated != RS_INVAL_NONE; > + inactive = slot->active_pid == 0; > > invalidated = (slot->data.invalidated != RS_INVAL_NONE); inactive = > (slot->active_pid == 0); > > instead? > > I think it's easier to read and it looks like this is the way it's written in > other > places (at least the few I checked). I think the current code is consistent with other similar code in slot.c. (grep "data.invalidated != RS_INVAL_NONE"). [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHut%2BPsATK8z1TEcfFE8zWoS1hagqsvaWYCgom_zYtScfwO7uQ%40mail.gmail.com Best Regards, Hou zj
