On 2/2/15 7:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
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).
At this point I don't remember what it was in your patch that tripped me
up on this, so I'm marking the patch rejected.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
