Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Kevin Grittner > <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > >> We could alternatively change one or the other of them to be a > >> struct with one member, but I think the cure might be worse than > >> the disease. ?By my count, we are talking about saving perhaps as > >> many as 34 lines of code changes here, and that's only if > >> complicating the type handling doesn't require any changes to > >> places that are untouched at present, which I suspect it would. > > > > So I stepped through all the changes of this type, and I notice that > > most of them are in areas where we've talked about likely benefits > > of creating new FlexLock variants instead of staying with LWLocks; > > if any of that is done (as seems likely), it further reduces the > > impact from 34 lines. ?If we take care of LWLockHeldByMe() as you > > describe, I'll concede the FlexLockId changes. > > Updated patches attached.
It would be helpful if the patch included some text about how flexilocks are different from ordinary lwlocks. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
