On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
What I think is the patch I attached. Thought?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
