On 20/06/2016 06:28, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On 18 June 2016 at 11:28, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Several times now when reading, debugging and writing code I've wished
>>> that LWLockHeldByMe assertions specified the expected mode, especially
>>> where exclusive locking is required.
>>> What do you think about something like the attached?  See also an
>>> example of use.  I will add this to the next commitfest.
>> I've wanted this before too [...]

same here.

> Before ab5194e6f (25 December 2014) held_lwlocks didn't record the mode.

I just reviewed both patches.  They applies cleanly on current HEAD,
work as intended and make check run smoothly.  Patches are pretty
straightforward, so I don't have much to say.

My only remark is on following comment:

+ * LWLockHeldByMeInMode - test whether my process holds a lock in mode X

Maybe something like "test whether my process holds a lock in given
mode" would be better?

Otherwise, I think they're ready for committer.

Julien Rouhaud
http://dalibo.com - http://dalibo.org

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

Reply via email to