On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 3:24 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: >
+ + /* + * Indicate that the lock is released for certain types of locks + */ +#ifdef USE_ASSERT_CHECKING + CheckAndSetLockHeld(locallock, false); +#endif } /* @@ -1618,6 +1666,11 @@ GrantLockLocal(LOCALLOCK *locallock, ResourceOwner owner) locallock->numLockOwners++; if (owner != NULL) ResourceOwnerRememberLock(owner, locallock); + + /* Indicate that the lock is acquired for certain types of locks. */ +#ifdef USE_ASSERT_CHECKING + CheckAndSetLockHeld(locallock, true); +#endif } There is no need to sprinkle USE_ASSERT_CHECKING at so many places, having inside the new function is sufficient. I have changed that, added few more comments and made minor changes. See, what you think about attached? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
v12-0001-Assert-that-we-don-t-acquire-a-heavyweight-lock-on-a.patch
Description: Binary data
v12-0002-Add-assert-to-ensure-that-page-locks-don-t-participa.patch
Description: Binary data
v12-0003-Allow-relation-extension-lock-to-conflict-among-para.patch
Description: Binary data
v12-0004-Allow-page-lock-to-conflict-among-parallel-group-mem.patch
Description: Binary data
