On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, That is another option but the main idea was to be inline with
> the btree code.
That's not a bad goal in principal, but _bt_killitems() doesn't have
any similar argument.
(Also, speaking of consistency, why did we end up with
_hash_kill_items, with an underscore between kill and items, and
_bt_killitems, without one?)
> Moreover, I am not sure if acquiring lwlock inside
> hashendscan (basically the place where we are trying to close down the
> things) would look good.
Well, if that's not a good thing to do, hiding it inside some other
function doesn't make it better. I think it's fine, though.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: