Re: [PATCHES] Refactoring lock.c
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Neil Conway wrote: On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:41 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: There's two almost identical pieces of code in LockRelease and LockReleaseAll that do the opposite of GrantLock. Here's a small patch that replaces those pieces with a static UnGrantLock function. LockReleaseAll() did not update the holdMask bits for a released proclock, but it will do so now. That's okay because we're removing the proclock, right? Right. - Heikki ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [PATCHES] Refactoring lock.c
Heikki Linnakangas wrote: There's two almost identical pieces of code in LockRelease and LockReleaseAll that do the opposite of GrantLock. Here's a small patch that replaces those pieces with a static UnGrantLock function. Applied to HEAD with a few trivial editorial fixes. Thanks for the patch. -Neil ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [PATCHES] Refactoring lock.c
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:41 +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: There's two almost identical pieces of code in LockRelease and LockReleaseAll that do the opposite of GrantLock. Here's a small patch that replaces those pieces with a static UnGrantLock function. LockReleaseAll() did not update the holdMask bits for a released proclock, but it will do so now. That's okay because we're removing the proclock, right? Barring any objections, I'll apply this to HEAD today or tomorrow. -Neil ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
