On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 13:20, Pavel Borisov <pashkin.e...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, Victor! > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 12:47, Victor Yegorov <vyego...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hey. > > > > I find “Get rid of WALBufMappingLock" commit message misleading, 'cos Lock > > it's being replaced by CV, actually. > > > > Should the subject be changed to “Replace WALBufMappingLock with > > ConditionVariable” instead? > > The patch replaces WALBufMappingLock with a lockless algorithm based > on atomic variables and CV. Mentioning only CV in the head is only a > part of implementation. Also, the header should better reflect what is > done on the whole, than the implementation details. So I'd rather see > a header like "Replace WALBufMappingLock by lockless algorithm" or > "Initialize WAL buffers concurrently without using WALBufMappingLock" > or something like that. Update: I see the patch is already committed, so we're late with the naming proposals. I don't see problem with existing commit message TBH.
Kind regards, Pavel Borisov
