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
