On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:13 AM, Michael Paquier >> <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I would just write "To >>> avoid calling CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS which can happen when releasing a >>> LWLock" and be done with it. There is no point to list a full function >>> dependency list, which could change in the future with static routines >>> of lwlock.c. > > Agreed. Updated the comment.
Robert actually liked adding the complete routine list. Let's see what Fujii-san thinks at the end, there is still some time until the next round of minor releases. Robert, if Fujii-san does not show up in time, would you look at this patch? I won't fight if you rework the comments the way you think is better :) -- Michael
