On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 1:15 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seeing no further discussion, I have committed my version of this
> patch, with your test case.
This comment on ProcSleep() seems to have the values of dontWait
backward (double negatives are tricky):
* Result: PROC_WAIT_STATUS_OK if we acquired the lock,
PROC_WAIT_STATUS_ERROR
* if not (if dontWait = true, this is a deadlock; if dontWait = false, we
* would have had to wait).
Also there's a minor typo in a comment in LockAcquireExtended():
* Check the proclock entry status. If dontWait = true, this is an
* expected case; otherwise, it will open happen if something in the
* ipc communication doesn't work correctly.
"open" should be "only".
