| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Pg Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FlexLocks |
| Date: | 2011-11-16 15:41:14 |
| Message-ID: | 23485.1321458074@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I just don't see the reason to do a global search and replace on
>> the lwlock name
> I was going to review further before commenting on that, but since
> it has now come up -- it seems odd that a source file which uses
> only LW locks needs to change so much for the FlexLock
> implementation.
Yeah, -1 on wideranging source changes for me too. There is no reason
that the current LWLock API need change. (I'm not saying that it has
to be same ABI though --- macro wrappers would be fine.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-11-16 15:51:33 | Re: FlexLocks |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-11-16 15:26:13 | Re: FlexLocks |