Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Now maybe there is some better way to do this, but at the moment, > I'm not seeing it. If we call them all LWLocks, but only some of > them support LWLockAcquire(), then that's going to be pretty > weird. Is there any way to typedef our way out of it, such that a LWLock *is a* FlexLock, but a FlexLock isn't a LWLock? If we could do that, you couldn't use just a plain old FlexLock in LWLockAcquire(), but you could do the cleanups, etc., that you want. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
