Hi Dilip, On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 4:45 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 12:52 PM Amit Langote <amitlangot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Oh I missed that the problem report is for the PG13 branch. > > > > How about the attached patch then? > > > Looks good,
Thanks for checking.
> one minor comment, how about making the below comment,
> same as on the head?
>
> - if (!found || !entry->replicate_valid)
> + if (!found)
> + {
> + /*
> + * Make the new entry valid enough for the callbacks to look at, in
> + * case any of them get invoked during the more complicated
> + * initialization steps below.
> + */
>
> On head:
> if (!found)
> {
> /* immediately make a new entry valid enough to satisfy callbacks */
Agree it's better to have the same comment in both branches.
Though, I think it should be "the new entry", not "a new entry". I
find the sentence I wrote a bit more enlightening, but I am fine with
just fixing the aforementioned problem with the existing comment.
I've updated the patch. Also, attaching a patch for HEAD for the
s/a/the change. While at it, I also capitalized "immediately".
--
Amit Langote
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
pg13-init-RelationSyncEntry-properly_v2.patch
Description: Binary data
HEAD-fix-get_rel_sync_entry-comment.patch
Description: Binary data
