Re: [PATCH] Function to get size of asynchronous notification queue - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Brendan Jurd
Subject Re: [PATCH] Function to get size of asynchronous notification queue
Date
Msg-id CADxJZo1uiYD5k2M3xNP-ikav3JSH7vugn9=LQCRLwvs5=fmGNw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Function to get size of asynchronous notification queue  (Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Function to get size of asynchronous notification queue  (Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 at 06:03 Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet@singh.im> wrote:
Patch reviewed following the instructions on https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Reviewing_a_Patch


Thank you for your review, Gurjeet.



s/proportion/fraction/

I think of these as synonymous -- do you have any particular reason to prefer "fraction"?  I don't feel strongly about it either way, so I'm quite happy to go with fraction if folks find that more expressive.
 

+ * The caller must hold (at least) shared AysncQueueLock.

A possibly better wording: The caller must hold AysncQueueLock in (at least) shared mode.

Yes, that is more accurate.
 

Unnecessary whitespace changes in pg_proc.h for existing functions.


I did group the asynchronous notification functions together, which seemed reasonable as there are now three of them, and changed the tabbing between the function name and namespace ID to match, as is done elsewhere in pg_proc.h.  I think those changes improve readability, but again I don't feel strongly about it.


+DESCR("get the current usage of the asynchronous notification queue");

A possibly better wording: get the fraction of the asynchronous notification queue currently in use

I have no objections to your wording.

Cheers,
BJ

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Schedule for 9.5alpha1