On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote: > The comment for the BackgroundWorkerSlot structure tripped me up reviewing > Robert's background worker patch; it made it clear that you need to use a > memory barrier before setting in_use, but normally you'd never need to worry > about that because RegisterDynamicBackgroundWorker() handles it for you. > Patch adds a comment to that effect.
I vote to reject this patch. I think it's explaining something that doesn't really need to be explained, and shouldn't be explained like this even if it does. It adds a comment that reads "Note that RegisterDynamicBackgroundWorker() handles in_use correctly for you". But the long block comment of which it is a part is entirely devoted to explaining concerns internal to bgworker.c, from which I think it should be inferred that all of the public APIs in that file handle all of the things in that paragraph correctly (or are intended to, anyway). -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
