Thread
Commits
-
Fix comments in ReplicationSlotAcquire().
- a9a47fb6d997 17.0 landed
-
Return ReplicationSlotAcquire API to its original form
- 1632ea43682f 14.0 cited
-
Fix inappropriate comments in function ReplicationSlotAcquire
Wei Wang (Fujitsu) <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com> — 2024-01-25T09:26:42Z
Hi, In the function ReplicationSlotAcquire(), I found there is a missing in the below comments: ``` /* * Search for the slot with the specified name if the slot to acquire is * not given. If the slot is not found, we either return -1 or error out. */ s = SearchNamedReplicationSlot(name, false); if (s == NULL || !s->in_use) { LWLockRelease(ReplicationSlotControlLock); ereport(ERROR, (errcode(ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_OBJECT), errmsg("replication slot \"%s\" does not exist", name))); } ``` It seems that when the slot is not found, we will only error out and will not return -1. Attach the patch to remove the inappropriate description of return value. Regards, Wang Wei -
Re: Fix inappropriate comments in function ReplicationSlotAcquire
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> — 2024-01-25T09:39:11Z
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 2:57 PM Wei Wang (Fujitsu) <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > In the function ReplicationSlotAcquire(), I found there is a missing in the > below comments: > > ``` > /* > * Search for the slot with the specified name if the slot to acquire is > * not given. If the slot is not found, we either return -1 or error out. > */ > s = SearchNamedReplicationSlot(name, false); > if (s == NULL || !s->in_use) > { > LWLockRelease(ReplicationSlotControlLock); > > ereport(ERROR, > (errcode(ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_OBJECT), > errmsg("replication slot \"%s\" does not exist", > name))); > } > ``` > > It seems that when the slot is not found, we will only error out and will not > return -1. > You seem to be correct. However, isn't the first part of the comment also slightly confusing? In particular, "... if the slot to acquire is not given." In this function, I don't see the case where a slot to acquire is given. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. -
RE: Fix inappropriate comments in function ReplicationSlotAcquire
Wei Wang (Fujitsu) <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com> — 2024-01-25T10:30:55Z
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 18:39 Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for your review. > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 2:57 PM Wei Wang (Fujitsu) > <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > In the function ReplicationSlotAcquire(), I found there is a missing in the > > below comments: > > > > ``` > > /* > > * Search for the slot with the specified name if the slot to acquire is > > * not given. If the slot is not found, we either return -1 or error out. > > */ > > s = SearchNamedReplicationSlot(name, false); > > if (s == NULL || !s->in_use) > > { > > LWLockRelease(ReplicationSlotControlLock); > > > > ereport(ERROR, > > (errcode(ERRCODE_UNDEFINED_OBJECT), > > errmsg("replication slot \"%s\" does not > exist", > > name))); > > } > > ``` > > > > It seems that when the slot is not found, we will only error out and will not > > return -1. > > > > You seem to be correct. However, isn't the first part of the comment > also slightly confusing? In particular, "... if the slot to acquire is > not given." In this function, I don't see the case where a slot to > acquire is given. Yes, agree. I think these two parts have become slightly outdated after the commit 1632ea4. So also tried to fix the first part of the comment. Attach the new patch. Regards, Wang Wei -
Re: Fix inappropriate comments in function ReplicationSlotAcquire
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> — 2024-01-25T11:32:34Z
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 4:01 PM Wei Wang (Fujitsu) <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > Yes, agree. I think these two parts have become slightly outdated after the > commit 1632ea4. So also tried to fix the first part of the comment. > Attach the new patch. > How about changing it to something simple like: diff --git a/src/backend/replication/slot.c b/src/backend/replication/slot.c index f2781d0455..84c257a7aa 100644 --- a/src/backend/replication/slot.c +++ b/src/backend/replication/slot.c @@ -465,10 +465,7 @@ retry: LWLockAcquire(ReplicationSlotControlLock, LW_SHARED); - /* - * Search for the slot with the specified name if the slot to acquire is - * not given. If the slot is not found, we either return -1 or error out. - */ + /* Check if the slot exits with the given name. */ s = SearchNamedReplicationSlot(name, false); if (s == NULL || !s->in_use) { -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. -
RE: Fix inappropriate comments in function ReplicationSlotAcquire
Wei Wang (Fujitsu) <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com> — 2024-01-26T01:17:06Z
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 20:33 Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 4:01 PM Wei Wang (Fujitsu) > <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > > > Yes, agree. I think these two parts have become slightly outdated after the > > commit 1632ea4. So also tried to fix the first part of the comment. > > Attach the new patch. > > > > How about changing it to something simple like: > diff --git a/src/backend/replication/slot.c b/src/backend/replication/slot.c > index f2781d0455..84c257a7aa 100644 > --- a/src/backend/replication/slot.c > +++ b/src/backend/replication/slot.c > @@ -465,10 +465,7 @@ retry: > > LWLockAcquire(ReplicationSlotControlLock, LW_SHARED); > > - /* > - * Search for the slot with the specified name if the slot to acquire is > - * not given. If the slot is not found, we either return -1 or > error out. > - */ > + /* Check if the slot exits with the given name. */ > s = SearchNamedReplicationSlot(name, false); > if (s == NULL || !s->in_use) > { It looks good to me. So, I updated the patch as suggested. Regards, Wang Wei -
Re: Fix inappropriate comments in function ReplicationSlotAcquire
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> — 2024-01-29T05:49:51Z
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 6:47 AM Wei Wang (Fujitsu) <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > It looks good to me. So, I updated the patch as suggested. > Pushed! -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
-
RE: Fix inappropriate comments in function ReplicationSlotAcquire
Wei Wang (Fujitsu) <wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com> — 2024-01-29T07:35:35Z
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 14:50 Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > Pushed! Thanks for pushing. Regards, Wang Wei