Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: > On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 04:28:47PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> I think I've >> pretty much said what I have to say about this; if nothing I wrote up >> until now swayed you, it's unlikely that anything else I say after >> this point will either.
> Say I drop the parts that change the binary. Does the attached v2 manage to > improve PostgreSQL, or is it neutral-or-harmful like v1? There can surely be no objection to improving these comments. However, I'm not convinced that we should word the comments to insist that the hypothetical cases are bugs. As I said before, I do not think there is an API contract that would promise that portals don't reach here in ACTIVE state. So IMO it's fair to note that no such case can arise currently, but not to state that it's a bug if it does. So for example I'd reword your last comment addition along the lines of "Currently, every MarkPortalActive() caller ensures it updates the portal status again before relinquishing control, so that ACTIVE can't happen here. If it does happen, dispose the portal like existing MarkPortalActive() callers would." regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers