On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
> On 03.02.2012 22:57, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> I think I recommended a bad name for this function. It's really
>> LWLockAcquireOrWaitUntilFree. Can we rename that?
>
> Agreed, that's better. Although quite long. "LWLockAcquireOrWait" per
On 03.02.2012 22:57, Robert Haas wrote:
I think I recommended a bad name for this function. It's really
LWLockAcquireOrWaitUntilFree. Can we rename that?
Agreed, that's better. Although quite long. "LWLockAcquireOrWait" perhaps?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprised
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> I think I recommended a bad name for this function. It's really
> LWLockAcquireOrWaitUntilFree. Can we rename that?
>
> We might also want to consider what all the behaviors are that we
> might want here. It strikes me that there are two p
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:35 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
wrote:
>> I think you should break this off into a new function,
>> LWLockWaitUntilFree(), rather than treating it as a new LWLockMode.
>> Also, instead of adding lwWaitOnly, I would suggest that we generalize
>> lwWaiting and lwExclusive into a
