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. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
