Thread: Typo in xact.c
Hi hacker, Recently, I find there might be a typo in xact.c comments. The comments say "PG_PROC", however, it actually means "PGPROC" structure. Since we have pg_proc catalog, and use PG_PROC to reference the catalog [1], so, we should use PGPROC to reference the structure. Any thoughts? [1] src/include/nodes/primnodes.h -- Regrads, Japin Li. ChengDu WenWu Information Technology Co.,Ltd. diff --git a/src/backend/access/transam/README b/src/backend/access/transam/README index 734c39a4d0..72af656060 100644 --- a/src/backend/access/transam/README +++ b/src/backend/access/transam/README @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ parent. This maintains the invariant that child transactions have XIDs later than their parents, which is assumed in a number of places. The subsidiary actions of obtaining a lock on the XID and entering it into -pg_subtrans and PG_PROC are done at the time it is assigned. +pg_subtrans and PGPROC are done at the time it is assigned. A transaction that has no XID still needs to be identified for various purposes, notably holding locks. For this purpose we assign a "virtual diff --git a/src/backend/access/transam/xact.c b/src/backend/access/transam/xact.c index 50f092d7eb..7abc6a0705 100644 --- a/src/backend/access/transam/xact.c +++ b/src/backend/access/transam/xact.c @@ -680,12 +680,12 @@ AssignTransactionId(TransactionState s) log_unknown_top = true; /* - * Generate a new FullTransactionId and record its xid in PG_PROC and + * Generate a new FullTransactionId and record its xid in PGPROC and * pg_subtrans. * * NB: we must make the subtrans entry BEFORE the Xid appears anywhere in - * shared storage other than PG_PROC; because if there's no room for it in - * PG_PROC, the subtrans entry is needed to ensure that other backends see + * shared storage other than PGPROC; because if there's no room for it in + * PGPROC, the subtrans entry is needed to ensure that other backends see * the Xid as "running". See GetNewTransactionId. */ s->fullTransactionId = GetNewTransactionId(isSubXact);
At Thu, 15 Sep 2022 22:38:01 +0800, Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com> wrote in > > Hi hacker, > > Recently, I find there might be a typo in xact.c comments. The comments > say "PG_PROC", however, it actually means "PGPROC" structure. Since we > have pg_proc catalog, and use PG_PROC to reference the catalog [1], so, > we should use PGPROC to reference the structure. Any thoughts? > > [1] src/include/nodes/primnodes.h The patch seems to me covering all occurances of PG_PROC as PGPROC. I found several uses of PG_PROC as (pg_catalog.)pg_proc, which is quite confusing, too.. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:11 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote: > > At Thu, 15 Sep 2022 22:38:01 +0800, Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com> wrote in > > > > Hi hacker, > > > > Recently, I find there might be a typo in xact.c comments. The comments > > say "PG_PROC", however, it actually means "PGPROC" structure. Since we > > have pg_proc catalog, and use PG_PROC to reference the catalog [1], so, > > we should use PGPROC to reference the structure. Any thoughts? > > > > [1] src/include/nodes/primnodes.h > > The patch seems to me covering all occurances of PG_PROC as PGPROC. +1 since this hinders grep-ability. > I found several uses of PG_PROC as (pg_catalog.)pg_proc, which is > quite confusing, too.. It's pretty obvious to me what that refers to in primnodes.h, although the capitalization of (some, but not all) catalog names in comments in that file is a bit strange. Maybe not worth changing there. -- John Naylor EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 at 11:51, John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:11 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi > <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> At Thu, 15 Sep 2022 22:38:01 +0800, Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com> wrote in >> > >> > Hi hacker, >> > >> > Recently, I find there might be a typo in xact.c comments. The comments >> > say "PG_PROC", however, it actually means "PGPROC" structure. Since we >> > have pg_proc catalog, and use PG_PROC to reference the catalog [1], so, >> > we should use PGPROC to reference the structure. Any thoughts? >> > >> > [1] src/include/nodes/primnodes.h >> >> The patch seems to me covering all occurances of PG_PROC as PGPROC. > > +1 since this hinders grep-ability. > >> I found several uses of PG_PROC as (pg_catalog.)pg_proc, which is >> quite confusing, too.. > > It's pretty obvious to me what that refers to in primnodes.h, although > the capitalization of (some, but not all) catalog names in comments in > that file is a bit strange. Maybe not worth changing there. Thanks for the review. I found for system catalog, we often use lower case. Here attached a new patch to fix it. -- Regrads, Japin Li. ChengDu WenWu Information Technology Co.,Ltd.
Attachment
On Fri, 16 Sep 2022 at 11:11, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote: > At Thu, 15 Sep 2022 22:38:01 +0800, Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com> wrote in >> >> Hi hacker, >> >> Recently, I find there might be a typo in xact.c comments. The comments >> say "PG_PROC", however, it actually means "PGPROC" structure. Since we >> have pg_proc catalog, and use PG_PROC to reference the catalog [1], so, >> we should use PGPROC to reference the structure. Any thoughts? >> >> [1] src/include/nodes/primnodes.h > > The patch seems to me covering all occurances of PG_PROC as PGPROC. > > I found several uses of PG_PROC as (pg_catalog.)pg_proc, which is > quite confusing, too.. > > regards. Thanks for the review. Attached a new patch to replace upper case system catatlog to lower case [1]. -- Regrads, Japin Li. ChengDu WenWu Information Technology Co.,Ltd.
On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:51 AM John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 10:11 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi > <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The patch seems to me covering all occurances of PG_PROC as PGPROC. > > +1 since this hinders grep-ability. Pushed this. > > I found several uses of PG_PROC as (pg_catalog.)pg_proc, which is > > quite confusing, too.. > > It's pretty obvious to me what that refers to in primnodes.h, although > the capitalization of (some, but not all) catalog names in comments in > that file is a bit strange. Maybe not worth changing there. I left this alone. It's not wrong, and I don't think it's confusing in context. -- John Naylor EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com