On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 4:55 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Bharath,
>
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 6:37 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> > +1 for rewording the comments. Here are my thoughts on the patch:
> >
> > 1) Just to be consistent(we are using this word in the error message,
> > and in other comments around there), how about
> > + * Determine whether to try to reestablish the connection.
> > instead of
> > + * Determine whether to try to remake the connection later.
>
> Actually, we use the word “remake” as well in comments in
> connection.c: e.g., “If the connection needs to be *remade* due to
> invalidation, disconnect as soon as we're out of all transactions.” in
> GetConnection(). But I don’t have a strong opinion about that, so
> I’ll change the word as proposed.
Thanks.
> > 2) Just to be consistent, how about
> > + * cases where we're starting new transaction (not subtransaction),
> > if a broken connection is
> > instead of
> > + * cases where we're out of all transactions, if a broken connection is
>
> Actually, I modified the comment to match existing comments like the
> one mentioned above. I think the patch would actually be more
> consistent.
Okay.
> > 3) IMO we don't need the word "later" here because we are immediately
> > reestablishing the connection, if it is decided to do so.
> > + * Determine whether to try to remake the connection later.
>
> Ok, I’ll drop the word “later”.
Thanks.
Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
