On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I would just write "To
>>> avoid calling CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS which can happen when releasing a
>>> LWLock" and be done with it. There is no point to list a full function
>>> dependency list, which could change in the future with static routines
>>> of lwlock.c.
>
> Agreed. Updated the comment.
Robert actually liked adding the complete routine list. Let's see what
Fujii-san thinks at the end, there is still some time until the next
round of minor releases. Robert, if Fujii-san does not show up in
time, would you look at this patch? I won't fight if you rework the
comments the way you think is better :)
--
Michael
