Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ildus Kurbangaliev <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches
Date: 2016-01-06 03:08:09
Message-ID: CAA4eK1K-__vWwtTSAg9tEr-63Sv8Jr6ncKqA_jYk7G750nD0Fw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> On 01/05/2016 08:04 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> I am not aware of such cases, however the reason I have kept it was for
>> backward-compatability, but now I have removed it in the attached patch.
>>
>> Apart from that, I have updated the docs to reflect the changes related
>> to new API's.
>>
>
> xfunc.sgml:
>
> + after allocating LWLocks, verify that the number of
allocated
> + LWLocks is same as requested;
>
> Did you mean to put this check in ?
>
Yes, it is good to check, right now I have added Assert in code as
I think it is a dev problem to over-allocate the lwlocks.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2016-01-06 03:16:58 Re: Add schema-qualified relnames in constraint error messages.
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2016-01-06 02:58:24 Re: Add schema-qualified relnames in constraint error messages.