On 2015-09-16 08:31:48 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > All of the index methods have their own synonyms of the BUFFER_LOCK_* > constants, for example: > > #define GIN_SHARE BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE > #define GIST_SHARE BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE > #define HASH_READ BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE > #define BT_READ BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE > > But most of them pass their constants directly to LockBuffer. So if they > were ever defined to be anything else, things would fall apart pretty > comprehensively. (Hash index also passes them to LockBuffer, but only > indirectly via some utility functions). > > What does this pseudo-encapsulation get us? It seems like we have a > separation of spelling, but no real separation of concerns.
I was annoyed by this more than once too. It also bugs me that unlocking a buffer is spelled LockBuffer(..., BUFFER_LOCK_UNLOCK) - that just reads wrong. FWIW, I think LockBuffer() as a extern C function is a pretty bad idea too - it's full of essentially unpredictable branches which on the caller's side are all constant. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
