Message-ID: <54D02EC5.1030505@BlueTreble.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 20:13:25 -0600
From: Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
CC: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Comment patch for bgworker.c
References: <544AF3FB.5000604@BlueTreble.com>
 <CA+TgmoYkuN_ZTsROmqzDkAMpxbYvPKLNfV9-AGdD+qUUty76KA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoYkuN_ZTsROmqzDkAMpxbYvPKLNfV9-AGdD+qUUty76KA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2015 02:13:32.5020 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR11MB0345
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
List-Archive: <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers>
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=help>
List-ID: <pgsql-hackers.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=sub%20pgsql-hackers>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 2/2/15 7:49 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote:
>> The comment for the BackgroundWorkerSlot structure tripped me up reviewing
>> Robert's background worker patch; it made it clear that you need to use a
>> memory barrier before setting in_use, but normally you'd never need to worry
>> about that because RegisterDynamicBackgroundWorker() handles it for you.
>> Patch adds a comment to that effect.
>
> I vote to reject this patch.  I think it's explaining something that
> doesn't really need to be explained, and shouldn't be explained like
> this even if it does.  It adds a comment that reads "Note that
> RegisterDynamicBackgroundWorker() handles in_use correctly for you".
> But the long block comment of which it is a part is entirely devoted
> to explaining concerns internal to bgworker.c, from which I think it
> should be inferred that all of the public APIs in that file handle all
> of the things in that paragraph correctly (or are intended to,
> anyway).

At this point I don't remember what it was in your patch that tripped me 
up on this, so I'm marking the patch rejected.
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers