Commit706cb9b

committed

Fix misleading comment in nodeIndexonlyscan.c.

The stated reason for acquiring predicate locks on heap pages hasn'texisted since commitc01262a, so fix the comment. Perhaps in a laterrelease we'll also be able to change the code to use tuple locks.Back-patch all the way.Reviewed-by: Ashwin AgrawalDiscussion:https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm%3D2GK3FVdnt5V3d%2Bh9njWipCv_fNL%3DwjxyUhzsF%3D0PcbNg%40mail.gmail.com

1 parente46cd42 commit706cb9bCopy full SHA for 706cb9b

File tree

-5

lines changed

-5

lines changed

Lines changed: 2 additions & 5 deletions

Original file line number	Diff line number	Diff line change
`@@ -166,11 +166,8 @@ IndexOnlyNext(IndexOnlyScanState *node)`
`166`	`166`	`}`
`167`	`167`
`168`	`168`	`/*`
`169`		`- * Predicate locks for index-only scans must be acquired at the page`
`170`		`- * level when the heap is not accessed, since tuple-level predicate`
`171`		`- * locks need the tuple's xmin value. If we had to visit the tuple`
`172`		`- * anyway, then we already have the tuple-level lock and can skip the`
`173`		`- * page lock.`
	`169`	`+ * If we didn't access the heap, then we'll need to take a predicate`
	`170`	`+ * lock explicitly, as if we had. For now we do that at page level.`
`174`	`171`	`*/`
`175`	`172`	`if (tuple==NULL)`
`176`	`173`	`PredicateLockPage(scandesc->heapRelation,`

Comments

(0)