consistently use "ProcSignal" instead of "procsignal" in code comments
Hi,
I see that "procsignal" and "ProcSignal" are being used in the code
comments which look inconsistent. IMO, "ProcSignal" is the right word
to use and let's be consistent across the code comments. Attaching a
tiny patch for that.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
Attachments:
v1-0001-consistently-use-ProcSignal-instead-of-procsignal.patchapplication/octet-stream; name=v1-0001-consistently-use-ProcSignal-instead-of-procsignal.patchDownload
From 01f990bc0b5af91b815fc354ceb64eaa6e432e1d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 05:49:27 +0000
Subject: [PATCH v1] consistently use ProcSignal instead of procsignal in code
comments
---
src/backend/storage/ipc/procsignal.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/storage/ipc/procsignal.c b/src/backend/storage/ipc/procsignal.c
index defb75aa26..6e69398cdd 100644
--- a/src/backend/storage/ipc/procsignal.c
+++ b/src/backend/storage/ipc/procsignal.c
@@ -105,7 +105,7 @@ static bool ProcessBarrierPlaceholder(void);
/*
* ProcSignalShmemSize
- * Compute space needed for procsignal's shared memory
+ * Compute space needed for ProcSignal's shared memory
*/
Size
ProcSignalShmemSize(void)
@@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ ProcSignalShmemSize(void)
/*
* ProcSignalShmemInit
- * Allocate and initialize procsignal's shared memory
+ * Allocate and initialize ProcSignal's shared memory
*/
void
ProcSignalShmemInit(void)
@@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ ProcSignalShmemInit(void)
/*
* ProcSignalInit
- * Register the current process in the procsignal array
+ * Register the current process in the ProcSignal array
*
* The passed index should be my BackendId if the process has one,
* or MaxBackends + aux process type if not.
--
2.25.1
On 2021/11/05 14:52, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
Hi,
I see that "procsignal" and "ProcSignal" are being used in the code
comments which look inconsistent. IMO, "ProcSignal" is the right word
to use and let's be consistent across the code comments. Attaching a
tiny patch for that.Thoughts?
I'm fine with this. Barring any objection, I will commit the patch.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 12:51:39PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
I'm fine with this. Barring any objection, I will commit the patch.
I have to admit that the timing is kind of odd, or strange, or both,
because I was just going through my backlog from -hackers, and just
bumped on this thread like 15 minutes ago.. And the patch was fine on
consistency ground, so I have just applied it now.
--
Michael
On 2021/11/09 13:01, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 12:51:39PM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
I'm fine with this. Barring any objection, I will commit the patch.
I have to admit that the timing is kind of odd, or strange, or both,
because I was just going through my backlog from -hackers, and just
bumped on this thread like 15 minutes ago..
:)
And the patch was fine on
consistency ground, so I have just applied it now.
Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION