Re: [HACKERS] Out of date comment in xlogutils.c

2010-07-08 Thread Tom Lane 
Joshua Tolley  writes:
> I noticed the following out-of-date bits in a comment in xlogutils.c:

Removing the comment altogether doesn't seem appropriate.  I changed it
to

 * (Getting the buffer lock is not really necessary during single-process
 * crash recovery, but some subroutines such as MarkBufferDirty will complain
 * if we don't have the lock.  In hot standby mode it's definitely necessary.)

regards, tom lane

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[HACKERS] Out of date comment in xlogutils.c

2010-07-08 Thread Joshua Tolley 
I noticed the following out-of-date bits in a comment in xlogutils.c:

   * LockBuffer(buffer, BUFFER_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE), for reading from the main
   * fork.
   *
-  * (Getting the lock is not really necessary, since we expect that this is
-  * only used during single-process XLOG replay, but some subroutines such
-  * as MarkBufferDirty will complain if we don't. And hopefully we'll get
-  * hot standby support in the future, where there will be backends running
-  * read-only queries during XLOG replay.)
-  *
   * The returned buffer is exclusively-locked.
   *
   * For historical reasons, instead of a ReadBufferMode argument, this only

--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature