On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > 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."
+1. I think Noah's comment additions constitute useful and helpful information, but I too am doubtful about the characterization of the situations in question as bugs. I don't see what the evidence for that is, especially given that it's quite hard to predict how the code might change in the future. However, to reiterate, a more neutral position of the same facts would get my vote. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers