MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <tencent_3912DE2F359F4FD003E110EF7EC4748A1905@qq.com>
 <20231128165139.rgmqsiw7mkedopze@awork3.anarazel.de> <tencent_11D01D86DFF79B0A300BC1C7A4B6F0D9790A@qq.com>
 <CA+TgmoYhmf14R9DPfdqx-ym+YV8dzMfwDR+e2qrj07BJ8=bz0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <tencent_1BB753C5F9D03D240E63EE8F4C639829E009@qq.com> <CA+TgmoaYwx7iCfB88xRykMTTORA+1MYkczzmykt4=W=DYTyKMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <202402081828091711555@qq.com> <tencent_6E053E4F8FB5C388FB1E5323E64C78875407@qq.com>
 <CA+TgmoaZNzNywg+jBXOYcsYbF5gdcY8+y5P5FofEEs6uyaN7_A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+TgmoYc56fSB-CcO3dJiwEAT8DP6ybmQS0+xb3ucWVMXjTXHw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoYc56fSB-CcO3dJiwEAT8DP6ybmQS0+xb3ucWVMXjTXHw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Will Mortensen <will@extrahop.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 19:14:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMpnoC5f+eiS7tdy8PUpd_LacSTVT-pYpVooKfjHRQQmkHPZ2g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] LockAcquireExtended improvement
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Jingxian Li <aqktjcm@qq.com>, andres <andres@anarazel.de>, 
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAMpnoC5f%2BeiS7tdy8PUpd_LacSTVT-pYpVooKfjHRQQmkHPZ2g%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 1:15=E2=80=AFPM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@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 =3D true, this is a deadlock; if dontWait =3D fal=
se, we
    * would have had to wait).

Also there's a minor typo in a comment in LockAcquireExtended():

    * Check the proclock entry status. If dontWait =3D 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".