| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: dynamic shared memory and locks |
| Date: | 2014-01-22 17:40:34 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobAjCzUz46CE46XCcTHZLSMzO=pi6rdEFFAN73LL7mTfA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Shouldn't we introduce a typedef LWLock* LWLockid; or something to avoid
>> breaking external code using lwlocks?
>
> +1, in fact there's probably no reason to touch most *internal* code using
> that type name either.
I thought about this but figured it was too much of a misnomer to
refer to a pointer as an ID. But, if we're sure we want to go that
route, I can go revise the patch along those lines.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-22 17:42:35 | Re: dynamic shared memory and locks |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2014-01-22 17:28:48 | Re: GIN improvements part 1: additional information |