| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Assert(LWLockHeldByMeInMode(lock, LW_EXCLUSIVE)) |
| Date: | 2016-06-20 03:43:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAMsr+YGMDaFavkYdYZ9tzSuHC9EUp4p3HjfETukb52jhWyBF7w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 18 June 2016 at 11:28, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>
> Several times now when reading, debugging and writing code I've wished
> that LWLockHeldByMe assertions specified the expected mode, especially
> where exclusive locking is required.
>
> What do you think about something like the attached? See also an
> example of use. I will add this to the next commitfest.
I've wanted this before too, and was surprised it wasn't present. TBH I
assumed there was a technical reason it wasn't and didn't investigate
further because I just assumed it'd have been added with the original
LWLockHeldByMe if it were simple.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-06-20 04:27:09 | Re: Experimental dynamic memory allocation of postgresql shared memory |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-06-20 03:40:06 | Re: Experimental dynamic memory allocation of postgresql shared memory |