From: Amit Kapila Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2022 04:07:19 +0000 (+0530) Subject: Improve comments referring snapshot's subxip array. X-Git-Tag: REL_16_BETA1~1332 X-Git-Url: http://git.ipfire.org/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=8b5262fa0efdd515a05e533c2a1198e7b666f7d8;p=thirdparty%2Fpostgresql.git Improve comments referring snapshot's subxip array. It was referred to as subxact array in a few places and subxip array in others. By changing it to subxip array, we make it consistent with similar references to xip array. Author: Japin Li Reviewd by: Julien Rouhaud, Richard Guo Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/MEYP282MB1669DCE7AC193A947CED2A95B6009@MEYP282MB1669.AUSP282.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM --- diff --git a/src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c b/src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c index 207c4b27fdf..9e8b6756fe0 100644 --- a/src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c +++ b/src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c @@ -2409,7 +2409,7 @@ GetSnapshotData(Snapshot snapshot) * We could try to store xids into xip[] first and then into subxip[] * if there are too many xids. That only works if the snapshot doesn't * overflow because we do not search subxip[] in that case. A simpler - * way is to just store all xids in the subxact array because this is + * way is to just store all xids in the subxip array because this is * by far the bigger array. We just leave the xip array empty. * * Either way we need to change the way XidInMVCCSnapshot() works diff --git a/src/backend/utils/time/snapmgr.c b/src/backend/utils/time/snapmgr.c index f1f2ddac17c..2524b1c585f 100644 --- a/src/backend/utils/time/snapmgr.c +++ b/src/backend/utils/time/snapmgr.c @@ -2345,7 +2345,7 @@ XidInMVCCSnapshot(TransactionId xid, Snapshot snapshot) else { /* - * In recovery we store all xids in the subxact array because it is by + * In recovery we store all xids in the subxip array because it is by * far the bigger array, and we mostly don't know which xids are * top-level and which are subxacts. The xip array is empty. *