Re: [HACKERS] Manual bitswizzling -> LOCKBIT_ON
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > While studying lmgr code, I noticed that there are a couple of places > that use 1 << x to convert a LOCKMODE to a LOCKMASK instead of the > macro that is used elsewhere. Should that be changed for consistency, > as in the attached? Sure, why not? Committed. -- 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
[HACKERS] Manual bitswizzling -> LOCKBIT_ON
Hi While studying lmgr code, I noticed that there are a couple of places that use 1 << x to convert a LOCKMODE to a LOCKMASK instead of the macro that is used elsewhere. Should that be changed for consistency, as in the attached? -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com use-lockbit-on-macro.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
