On 02/10/2014 08:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> writes:
On 02/10/2014 06:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
Well, it's not actually using any lwlock.c code, it's a special case
locking logic, just reusing the datastructures. That said, I am not
particularly happy about the amount of code it's duplicating from
lwlock.c. Pretty much all of WALInsertSlotReleaseOne and most of
WALInsertSlotAcquireOne() is a copied.


I'm not too happy with the amount of copy-paste myself, but there was
enough difference to regular lwlocks that I didn't want to bother all
lwlocks with the xlog-specific stuff either. The WAL insert slots do
share the LWLock-related PGPROC fields though, and semaphore. I'm all
ears if you have ideas on that..

I agree that if the behavior is considerably different, we don't really
want to try to make LWLockAcquire/Release cater to both this and their
standard behavior.  But why not add some additional functions in lwlock.c
that do what xlog wants?  If we're going to have mostly-copy-pasted logic,
it'd at least be better if it was in the same file, and not somewhere
that's not even in the same major subtree.

Ok, I'll try to refactor it that way, so that we can see if it looks better.

Also, the reason that LWLock isn't an abstract struct is because we wanted
to be able to embed it in other structs; *not* as license for other
modules to fool with its contents.  If we were working in C++ we'd
certainly have made all its fields private.

Um, xlog.c is doing no such thing. The insertion slots use a struct of their own, which is also copy-pasted from LWLock (with one additional field).

- Heikki


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to