On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I don't understand the point of having these GIN_EXCLUSIVE / GIN_SHARED > symbols. It's not like we could do anything different than > BUFFER_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE etc instead. It there was a GinLockBuffer() it > might make more sense to have specialized symbols, but as it is it seems > pointless.
It's a pattern common to the index AMs. I think it's kind of pointless myself, but as long as we're doing it we might as well be consistent. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
