On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 03:29:02PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2025-08-27 12:14:41 -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 12:18:27PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 05:00:13PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > > On 2025-08-26 16:21:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 3:45 PM Andres Freund <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > DOES ANYBODY HAVE A BETTER NAME THAN SHARE-EXCLUSIVE???!?
> > > Which would leave us with: > > > - reference (pins today) > > > - share > > > - share-exclusive > > > - exclusive > > > - cleanup > > Compared to share-exclusive, I think I'd prefer a name that describes the > > use > > cases, "set-hints-or-write" (or separate "write" and "set-hints" levels). Another name idea is "self-exclusive", to contrast with "exclusive" excluding all of (exclusive, self-exclusive, share). Fortunately, not much code will acquire this lock type. Hence, there's relatively little damage if the name is less obvious than older lock types or if the name changes later.
