On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 13:20, Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, Victor!
>
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 12:47, Victor Yegorov <vyegorov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hey.
> >
> > I find “Get rid of WALBufMappingLock" commit message misleading, 'cos Lock it's being replaced by CV, actually.
> >
> > Should the subject be changed to “Replace WALBufMappingLock with ConditionVariable” instead?
>
> The patch replaces WALBufMappingLock with a lockless algorithm based
> on atomic variables and CV. Mentioning only CV in the head is only a
> part of implementation. Also, the header should better reflect what is
> done on the whole, than the implementation details. So I'd rather see
> a header like "Replace WALBufMappingLock by lockless algorithm" or
> "Initialize WAL buffers concurrently without using WALBufMappingLock"
> or something like that.
Update: I see the patch is already committed, so we're late with the
naming proposals. I don't see problem with existing commit message
TBH.
Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov
