Hello,
At Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:54:31 -0400, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote in
10710.1405626...@sss.pgh.pa.us
Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com writes:
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
Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
Hello,
As far as I see gin seems using GIN_EXCLUSIVE instead of
BUFFER_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE for LockBuffer, but the raw
BUFFER_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE appears in ginbuildempty().
Does it has a meaning to fix them to GIN_EXCLUSIVE?
I don't understand the point of having these
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
Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com writes:
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
Hello,
As far as I see gin seems using GIN_EXCLUSIVE instead of
BUFFER_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE for LockBuffer, but the raw
BUFFER_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE appears in ginbuildempty().
Does it has a meaning to fix them to GIN_EXCLUSIVE?
regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
diff --git
