On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 8:57 AM Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.saw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 00:54, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 6:20 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 4:34 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I have modified 0001 and 0002 slightly, Basically, instead of two > > > > function CheckAndSetLockHeld and CheckAndReSetLockHeld, I have created > > > > a one function. > > > > > > > > > > +CheckAndSetLockHeld(LOCALLOCK *locallock, bool value) > > > > > > Can we rename the parameter as lock_held, acquired or something like > > > that so that it indicates what it intends to do and probably add a > > > comment for that variable atop of function? > > > > Done > > > > I've looked at the patches and ISTM these work as expected.
Thanks for verifying. > IsRelationExtensionLockHeld and IsPageLockHeld are used only when > assertion is enabled. So how about making CheckAndSetLockHeld work > only if USE_ASSERT_CHECKING to avoid overheads? That makes sense to me so updated the patch. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
v10-0001-Assert-that-we-don-t-acquire-a-heavyweight-lock-.patch
Description: Binary data
v10-0003-Allow-relation-extension-lock-to-conflict-among-.patch
Description: Binary data
v10-0004-Allow-page-lock-to-conflict-among-parallel-group.patch
Description: Binary data
v10-0002-Add-assert-to-ensure-that-page-locks-don-t-parti.patch
Description: Binary data
