From 76176caea75141f5fbcb0308ad10df88b8542bd5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Hanefi Onaldi Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 21:24:58 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] Fix typo s/exlusive/exclusive/ --- src/backend/columnar/columnar_tableam.c | 4 ++-- .../distributed/executor/distributed_execution_locks.c | 2 +- src/backend/distributed/transaction/transaction_recovery.c | 2 +- 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/columnar/columnar_tableam.c b/src/backend/columnar/columnar_tableam.c index 05fe0c536..df1d28584 100644 --- a/src/backend/columnar/columnar_tableam.c +++ b/src/backend/columnar/columnar_tableam.c @@ -2660,7 +2660,7 @@ upgrade_columnar_storage(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) * ACCESS EXCLUSIVE LOCK is not required by the low-level routines, so we * can take only an ACCESS SHARE LOCK. But all access to non-current * columnar tables will fail anyway, so it's better to take ACCESS - * EXLUSIVE LOCK now. + * EXCLUSIVE LOCK now. */ Relation rel = table_open(relid, AccessExclusiveLock); if (!IsColumnarTableAmTable(relid)) @@ -2696,7 +2696,7 @@ downgrade_columnar_storage(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) * ACCESS EXCLUSIVE LOCK is not required by the low-level routines, so we * can take only an ACCESS SHARE LOCK. But all access to non-current * columnar tables will fail anyway, so it's better to take ACCESS - * EXLUSIVE LOCK now. + * EXCLUSIVE LOCK now. */ Relation rel = table_open(relid, AccessExclusiveLock); if (!IsColumnarTableAmTable(relid)) diff --git a/src/backend/distributed/executor/distributed_execution_locks.c b/src/backend/distributed/executor/distributed_execution_locks.c index 035c6e511..27c6a961d 100644 --- a/src/backend/distributed/executor/distributed_execution_locks.c +++ b/src/backend/distributed/executor/distributed_execution_locks.c @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ AcquireExecutorShardLocksForRelationRowLockList(List *relationRowLockList) * We have selected these lock types according to conflict table given in the * Postgres documentation. It is given that FOR UPDATE and FOR NO KEY UPDATE * must be conflict with each other modify command. By getting ExlcusiveLock - * we guarantee that. Note that, getting ExlusiveLock does not mimic the + * we guarantee that. Note that, getting ExclusiveLock does not mimic the * behaviour of Postgres exactly. Getting row lock with FOR NO KEY UPDATE and * FOR KEY SHARE do not conflict in Postgres, yet they block each other in * our implementation. Since FOR SHARE and FOR KEY SHARE does not conflict diff --git a/src/backend/distributed/transaction/transaction_recovery.c b/src/backend/distributed/transaction/transaction_recovery.c index 1f42ab2e6..87809c7b5 100644 --- a/src/backend/distributed/transaction/transaction_recovery.c +++ b/src/backend/distributed/transaction/transaction_recovery.c @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ RecoverWorkerTransactions(WorkerNode *workerNode) * distributed transactions. * * We could avoid this by temporarily blocking new prepared transactions - * from being created by taking an ExlusiveLock on pg_dist_transaction. + * from being created by taking an ExclusiveLock on pg_dist_transaction. * However, this hurts write performance, so instead we avoid blocking * by consulting the list of active distributed transactions, and follow * a carefully chosen order to avoid race conditions: