| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FlexLocks |
| Date: | 2011-11-16 16:17:42 |
| Message-ID: | 4EC38DC60200002500043042@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Now maybe there is some better way to do this, but at the moment,
> I'm not seeing it. If we call them all LWLocks, but only some of
> them support LWLockAcquire(), then that's going to be pretty
> weird.
Is there any way to typedef our way out of it, such that a LWLock
*is a* FlexLock, but a FlexLock isn't a LWLock? If we could do
that, you couldn't use just a plain old FlexLock in LWLockAcquire(),
but you could do the cleanups, etc., that you want.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-11-16 16:44:39 | Re: strict aliasing |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2011-11-16 16:14:40 | Re: FlexLocks |