PostgreSQL reconsiders its process-based model

Re:PostgreSQL reconsiders its process-based model by withinboredom on Monday June 19, 2023 @03:37PM (#36395608)

Even outdated comments can tell you the original purpose of the code, which helps if you're looking for a bug. Especially if you're looking for a bug.

If someone didn't take the time to update the comments and the reviewers didn't point it out, then you've probably found the bug because someone was cowboying some shitty code.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PostgreSQL reconsiders its process-based model by alex_reg on Monday June 19, 2023 @04:36PM (#36396158)

I have the opposite experience.

Outdated comments are often way worse than no comments, because they can give you wrong ideas that aren't true anymore, and send you off in the wrong direction before you finally figure out the comment was wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PostgreSQL reconsiders its process-based model by elteto on Monday June 19, 2023 @04:45PM (#36396236)

Indeed. I recently found this piece of code:

    if (X) assert(false); // we never do X, ever, anywhere.

Then I look over to the other pane, where I have a different, but related file open:

    if (exact same X) { do_useful_stuff(); }

It got a chuckle out of me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PostgreSQL reconsiders its process-based model by jgilias on Tuesday June 20, 2023 @12:30AM (#36399732)

Did you update the comment? :-)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PostgreSQL reconsiders its process-based model by withinboredom on Tuesday June 20, 2023 @02:09AM (#36400333)

// there are two kinds of mutually exclusive commentors

enum kinds { writers; readers; updaters; }

[ Parent | on HN ]