On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2016-04-18 17:12:32 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> > > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> > >> Allow Pin/UnpinBuffer to operate in a lockfree manner.
>> > >
>> > > Now that I've had some occasion to look around in bufmgr.c, I am very
>> > > unhappy that there are still boatloads of comments talking about a buffer
>> > > header's spinlock, when there is in fact no spinlock anymore. Please
>> > > expend some effort on making this less confusing for the next hacker.
>> > > Maybe make those comments talk about a "lock bit" instead?
>> >
>> > I was actually going to complain about this, too. I noticed it over
>> > the weekend when noodling around with another patch. I'm not sure
>> > exactly how it should be revised, but I find the current state of
>> > things confusing.
>> >
>>
>> +1
>> Do we have consensus on renaming "buffer header spinlock" to "buffer header
>> lock bit"?
>
> Personally I think the "spin" part is actually quite relevant, and I
> think we shouldn't loose it. It describes concurrency and blocking
> behaviour, and how errors need to be handled (i.e. there may not be
> any).
IMHO, "buffer header lock bit" is plenty clear enough. We could say
"buffer header spin lock bit" but I think that's too many words and
not actually more clear.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
