Hi Neil,
> > No. This isn't necessary (and what action would it take in any > > case?). > > It should write a log message. I'm not sure why this /shouldn't/ be > done: if an operation fails, we should log that failure. This is > standard practise. Fair enough. Will do (although, I'd point out that there are more than a few places in the existing code where unlink is called without error checking, but that isn't justification for not doing it here). > >> Doesn't this function still acquire ShmemIndexLock? (i.e. why was > >> this comment changed?) > > > > AFAICS this is just whitespace differences. > > Read it again. Here's the whole diff hunk: > [snip] > The code acquires ShmemIndexLock, performs some computations, and then > notes that "ShmemLock is held" in a comment before returning. ISTM > that is plainly wrong. [I did, again. Twice just now. And still didn't see what you were trying to point out. And then...] Ah. Yep. Typo. Will fix (I was experimenting with using the ShmemLock, instead of creating a new ShmemIndexLock, and forgot to change the comment back). > > [ the only other suggested changes are ] stylistic/cosmetic and > > effect the EXEC_BACKEND code only. > > Yeah, my apologies for nitpicking... Not at all. I want this done well. Thank you for any input. Cheers, Claudio --- Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics. For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see <a href="http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html";>http://www.memetrics.com/em ailpolicy.html</a> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
