On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 20:33 Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 4:01 PM Wei Wang (Fujitsu) > <wangw.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > > Yes, agree. I think these two parts have become slightly outdated after the > > commit 1632ea4. So also tried to fix the first part of the comment. > > Attach the new patch. > > > > How about changing it to something simple like: > diff --git a/src/backend/replication/slot.c b/src/backend/replication/slot.c > index f2781d0455..84c257a7aa 100644 > --- a/src/backend/replication/slot.c > +++ b/src/backend/replication/slot.c > @@ -465,10 +465,7 @@ retry: > > LWLockAcquire(ReplicationSlotControlLock, LW_SHARED); > > - /* > - * Search for the slot with the specified name if the slot to acquire > is > - * not given. If the slot is not found, we either return -1 or > error out. > - */ > + /* Check if the slot exits with the given name. */ > s = SearchNamedReplicationSlot(name, false); > if (s == NULL || !s->in_use) > {
It looks good to me. So, I updated the patch as suggested. Regards, Wang Wei
v3-0001-Fix-inappropriate-comments-in-function-Replicatio.patch
Description: v3-0001-Fix-inappropriate-comments-in-function-Replicatio.patch