On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 2:45 PM Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 at 15:23, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 12:16 PM Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 11:26 AM Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Recently, when I read the XidInMVCCSnapshot(), and find there are some
> >>> typos in the comments.
> >>
> >>
> >> Hmm, it seems to me 'the subxact array' is just another saying to refer
> >> to snapshot->subxip. I'm not sure about this being typo. But I have no
> >> objection to this change, as it is more consistent with the 'xip array'
> >> saying followed.
> >>
> >
> > Agreed, it is more about being consistent with xip array.
>
> Thanks for reviewings.
>
> Maybe a wrong plural in XidInMvccSnapshot().
>
> * Make a quick range check to eliminate most XIDs without looking at the
> * xip arrays.
>
> I think we should use "xip array" instead of "xip arrays".
>
I think here the comment is referring to both xip and subxip array, so
it looks okay to me.
> Furthermore, if the snapshot is taken during recovery, the xip array is
> empty, and we should check subxip array. How about changing "xip arrays"
> to "xip or subxip array"?
>
I don't know if that is an improvement. I think we should stick to
your initial proposed change.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
