On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 8:39 PM Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 4:55 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
Pushed after modifying the patch as such. Thanks for reviewing!
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
