diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c')
| -rw-r--r-- | src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c | 72 |
1 files changed, 36 insertions, 36 deletions
diff --git a/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c b/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c index 479853d99a1..0105825e14a 100644 --- a/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c +++ b/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ initscan(HeapScanDesc scan, ScanKey key, bool is_rescan) * while the scan is in progress will be invisible to my snapshot anyway. * (That is not true when using a non-MVCC snapshot. However, we couldn't * guarantee to return tuples added after scan start anyway, since they - * might go into pages we already scanned. To guarantee consistent + * might go into pages we already scanned. To guarantee consistent * results for a non-MVCC snapshot, the caller must hold some higher-level * lock that ensures the interesting tuple(s) won't change.) */ @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ initscan(HeapScanDesc scan, ScanKey key, bool is_rescan) /* * If the table is large relative to NBuffers, use a bulk-read access - * strategy and enable synchronized scanning (see syncscan.c). Although + * strategy and enable synchronized scanning (see syncscan.c). Although * the thresholds for these features could be different, we make them the * same so that there are only two behaviors to tune rather than four. * (However, some callers need to be able to disable one or both of these @@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ heapgetpage(HeapScanDesc scan, BlockNumber page) /* * We must hold share lock on the buffer content while examining tuple - * visibility. Afterwards, however, the tuples we have found to be + * visibility. Afterwards, however, the tuples we have found to be * visible are guaranteed good as long as we hold the buffer pin. */ LockBuffer(buffer, BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE); @@ -1675,7 +1675,7 @@ heap_hot_search(ItemPointer tid, Relation relation, Snapshot snapshot, * possibly uncommitted version. * * *tid is both an input and an output parameter: it is updated to - * show the latest version of the row. Note that it will not be changed + * show the latest version of the row. Note that it will not be changed * if no version of the row passes the snapshot test. */ void @@ -1794,7 +1794,7 @@ heap_get_latest_tid(Relation relation, * * This is called after we have waited for the XMAX transaction to terminate. * If the transaction aborted, we guarantee the XMAX_INVALID hint bit will - * be set on exit. If the transaction committed, we set the XMAX_COMMITTED + * be set on exit. If the transaction committed, we set the XMAX_COMMITTED * hint bit if possible --- but beware that that may not yet be possible, * if the transaction committed asynchronously. Hence callers should look * only at XMAX_INVALID. @@ -1867,7 +1867,7 @@ FreeBulkInsertState(BulkInsertState bistate) * The return value is the OID assigned to the tuple (either here or by the * caller), or InvalidOid if no OID. The header fields of *tup are updated * to match the stored tuple; in particular tup->t_self receives the actual - * TID where the tuple was stored. But note that any toasting of fields + * TID where the tuple was stored. But note that any toasting of fields * within the tuple data is NOT reflected into *tup. */ Oid @@ -1888,7 +1888,7 @@ heap_insert(Relation relation, HeapTuple tup, CommandId cid, /* * If the object id of this tuple has already been assigned, trust the - * caller. There are a couple of ways this can happen. At initial db + * caller. There are a couple of ways this can happen. At initial db * creation, the backend program sets oids for tuples. When we define * an index, we set the oid. Finally, in the future, we may allow * users to set their own object ids in order to support a persistent @@ -2186,10 +2186,10 @@ l1: /* * You might think the multixact is necessarily done here, but not * so: it could have surviving members, namely our own xact or - * other subxacts of this backend. It is legal for us to delete + * other subxacts of this backend. It is legal for us to delete * the tuple in either case, however (the latter case is * essentially a situation of upgrading our former shared lock to - * exclusive). We don't bother changing the on-disk hint bits + * exclusive). We don't bother changing the on-disk hint bits * since we are about to overwrite the xmax altogether. */ } @@ -2259,7 +2259,7 @@ l1: /* * If this transaction commits, the tuple will become DEAD sooner or * later. Set flag that this page is a candidate for pruning once our xid - * falls below the OldestXmin horizon. If the transaction finally aborts, + * falls below the OldestXmin horizon. If the transaction finally aborts, * the subsequent page pruning will be a no-op and the hint will be * cleared. */ @@ -2360,7 +2360,7 @@ l1: * * This routine may be used to delete a tuple when concurrent updates of * the target tuple are not expected (for example, because we have a lock - * on the relation associated with the tuple). Any failure is reported + * on the relation associated with the tuple). Any failure is reported * via ereport(). */ void @@ -2456,7 +2456,7 @@ heap_update(Relation relation, ItemPointer otid, HeapTuple newtup, /* * Fetch the list of attributes to be checked for HOT update. This is * wasted effort if we fail to update or have to put the new tuple on a - * different page. But we must compute the list before obtaining buffer + * different page. But we must compute the list before obtaining buffer * lock --- in the worst case, if we are doing an update on one of the * relevant system catalogs, we could deadlock if we try to fetch the list * later. In any case, the relcache caches the data so this is usually @@ -2544,10 +2544,10 @@ l2: /* * You might think the multixact is necessarily done here, but not * so: it could have surviving members, namely our own xact or - * other subxacts of this backend. It is legal for us to update + * other subxacts of this backend. It is legal for us to update * the tuple in either case, however (the latter case is * essentially a situation of upgrading our former shared lock to - * exclusive). We don't bother changing the on-disk hint bits + * exclusive). We don't bother changing the on-disk hint bits * since we are about to overwrite the xmax altogether. */ } @@ -2643,7 +2643,7 @@ l2: * If the toaster needs to be activated, OR if the new tuple will not fit * on the same page as the old, then we need to release the content lock * (but not the pin!) on the old tuple's buffer while we are off doing - * TOAST and/or table-file-extension work. We must mark the old tuple to + * TOAST and/or table-file-extension work. We must mark the old tuple to * show that it's already being updated, else other processes may try to * update it themselves. * @@ -2708,7 +2708,7 @@ l2: * there's more free now than before. * * What's more, if we need to get a new page, we will need to acquire - * buffer locks on both old and new pages. To avoid deadlock against + * buffer locks on both old and new pages. To avoid deadlock against * some other backend trying to get the same two locks in the other * order, we must be consistent about the order we get the locks in. * We use the rule "lock the lower-numbered page of the relation @@ -2766,7 +2766,7 @@ l2: /* * At this point newbuf and buffer are both pinned and locked, and newbuf - * has enough space for the new tuple. If they are the same buffer, only + * has enough space for the new tuple. If they are the same buffer, only * one pin is held. */ @@ -2774,7 +2774,7 @@ l2: { /* * Since the new tuple is going into the same page, we might be able - * to do a HOT update. Check if any of the index columns have been + * to do a HOT update. Check if any of the index columns have been * changed. If not, then HOT update is possible. */ if (HeapSatisfiesHOTUpdate(relation, hot_attrs, &oldtup, heaptup)) @@ -2792,13 +2792,13 @@ l2: /* * If this transaction commits, the old tuple will become DEAD sooner or * later. Set flag that this page is a candidate for pruning once our xid - * falls below the OldestXmin horizon. If the transaction finally aborts, + * falls below the OldestXmin horizon. If the transaction finally aborts, * the subsequent page pruning will be a no-op and the hint will be * cleared. * * XXX Should we set hint on newbuf as well? If the transaction aborts, * there would be a prunable tuple in the newbuf; but for now we choose - * not to optimize for aborts. Note that heap_xlog_update must be kept in + * not to optimize for aborts. Note that heap_xlog_update must be kept in * sync if this decision changes. */ PageSetPrunable(page, xid); @@ -2962,7 +2962,7 @@ heap_tuple_attr_equals(TupleDesc tupdesc, int attrnum, /* * Extract the corresponding values. XXX this is pretty inefficient if - * there are many indexed columns. Should HeapSatisfiesHOTUpdate do a + * there are many indexed columns. Should HeapSatisfiesHOTUpdate do a * single heap_deform_tuple call on each tuple, instead? But that doesn't * work for system columns ... */ @@ -2985,7 +2985,7 @@ heap_tuple_attr_equals(TupleDesc tupdesc, int attrnum, /* * We do simple binary comparison of the two datums. This may be overly * strict because there can be multiple binary representations for the - * same logical value. But we should be OK as long as there are no false + * same logical value. But we should be OK as long as there are no false * positives. Using a type-specific equality operator is messy because * there could be multiple notions of equality in different operator * classes; furthermore, we cannot safely invoke user-defined functions @@ -3041,7 +3041,7 @@ HeapSatisfiesHOTUpdate(Relation relation, Bitmapset *hot_attrs, * * This routine may be used to update a tuple when concurrent updates of * the target tuple are not expected (for example, because we have a lock - * on the relation associated with the tuple). Any failure is reported + * on the relation associated with the tuple). Any failure is reported * via ereport(). */ void @@ -3123,7 +3123,7 @@ simple_heap_update(Relation relation, ItemPointer otid, HeapTuple tup) * waiter gets the tuple, potentially leading to indefinite starvation of * some waiters. The possibility of share-locking makes the problem much * worse --- a steady stream of share-lockers can easily block an exclusive - * locker forever. To provide more reliable semantics about who gets a + * locker forever. To provide more reliable semantics about who gets a * tuple-level lock first, we use the standard lock manager. The protocol * for waiting for a tuple-level lock is really * LockTuple() @@ -3131,7 +3131,7 @@ simple_heap_update(Relation relation, ItemPointer otid, HeapTuple tup) * mark tuple as locked by me * UnlockTuple() * When there are multiple waiters, arbitration of who is to get the lock next - * is provided by LockTuple(). However, at most one tuple-level lock will + * is provided by LockTuple(). However, at most one tuple-level lock will * be held or awaited per backend at any time, so we don't risk overflow * of the lock table. Note that incoming share-lockers are required to * do LockTuple as well, if there is any conflict, to ensure that they don't @@ -3273,7 +3273,7 @@ l3: /* * You might think the multixact is necessarily done here, but not * so: it could have surviving members, namely our own xact or - * other subxacts of this backend. It is legal for us to lock the + * other subxacts of this backend. It is legal for us to lock the * tuple in either case, however. We don't bother changing the * on-disk hint bits since we are about to overwrite the xmax * altogether. @@ -3431,7 +3431,7 @@ l3: /* * Can get here iff HeapTupleSatisfiesUpdate saw the old xmax * as running, but it finished before - * TransactionIdIsInProgress() got to run. Treat it like + * TransactionIdIsInProgress() got to run. Treat it like * there's no locker in the tuple. */ } @@ -3467,8 +3467,8 @@ l3: MarkBufferDirty(*buffer); /* - * XLOG stuff. You might think that we don't need an XLOG record because - * there is no state change worth restoring after a crash. You would be + * XLOG stuff. You might think that we don't need an XLOG record because + * there is no state change worth restoring after a crash. You would be * wrong however: we have just written either a TransactionId or a * MultiXactId that may never have been seen on disk before, and we need * to make sure that there are XLOG entries covering those ID numbers. @@ -3530,7 +3530,7 @@ l3: * heap_inplace_update - update a tuple "in place" (ie, overwrite it) * * Overwriting violates both MVCC and transactional safety, so the uses - * of this function in Postgres are extremely limited. Nonetheless we + * of this function in Postgres are extremely limited. Nonetheless we * find some places to use it. * * The tuple cannot change size, and therefore it's reasonable to assume @@ -3684,7 +3684,7 @@ heap_freeze_tuple(HeapTupleHeader tuple, TransactionId cutoff_xid, /* * When we release shared lock, it's possible for someone else to change * xmax before we get the lock back, so repeat the check after acquiring - * exclusive lock. (We don't need this pushup for xmin, because only + * exclusive lock. (We don't need this pushup for xmin, because only * VACUUM could be interested in changing an existing tuple's xmin, and * there's only one VACUUM allowed on a table at a time.) */ @@ -3829,7 +3829,7 @@ heap_restrpos(HeapScanDesc scan) else { /* - * If we reached end of scan, rs_inited will now be false. We must + * If we reached end of scan, rs_inited will now be false. We must * reset it to true to keep heapgettup from doing the wrong thing. */ scan->rs_inited = true; @@ -4013,7 +4013,7 @@ log_heap_clean(Relation reln, Buffer buffer, } /* - * Perform XLogInsert for a heap-freeze operation. Caller must already + * Perform XLogInsert for a heap-freeze operation. Caller must already * have modified the buffer and marked it dirty. */ XLogRecPtr @@ -4056,7 +4056,7 @@ log_heap_freeze(Relation reln, Buffer buffer, } /* - * Perform XLogInsert for a heap-update operation. Caller must already + * Perform XLogInsert for a heap-update operation. Caller must already * have modified the buffer(s) and marked them dirty. */ static XLogRecPtr @@ -4135,7 +4135,7 @@ log_heap_update(Relation reln, Buffer oldbuf, ItemPointerData from, * for writing the page to disk after calling this routine. * * Note: all current callers build pages in private memory and write them - * directly to smgr, rather than using bufmgr. Therefore there is no need + * directly to smgr, rather than using bufmgr. Therefore there is no need * to pass a buffer ID to XLogInsert, nor to perform MarkBufferDirty within * the critical section. * @@ -4617,7 +4617,7 @@ heap_xlog_update(XLogRecPtr lsn, XLogRecord *record, bool hot_update) /* * In normal operation, it is important to lock the two pages in * page-number order, to avoid possible deadlocks against other update - * operations going the other way. However, during WAL replay there can + * operations going the other way. However, during WAL replay there can * be no other update happening, so we don't need to worry about that. But * we *do* need to worry that we don't expose an inconsistent state to Hot * Standby queries --- so the original page can't be unlocked before we've |