| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |
| Date: | 2022-03-14 16:44:27 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-t6=VBEOoWqoauZ9Dcf17YmbNnb1O2QvuWK=ep9PuVCDw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 10:04 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Regarding 0004, I can't really see a reason for this function to take
> a LockRelId as a parameter rather than two separate OIDs. I also can't
> entirely see why it should be called LockRelationId. Maybe
> LockRelationInDatabaseById(Oid dbid, Oid relid, LOCKMODE lockmode)?
> Note that neither caller actually has a LockRelId available; both have
> to construct one.
Actually we already have an existing function
UnlockRelationId(LockRelId *relid, LOCKMODE lockmode) so it makes more
sense to have a parallel lock function. Do you still think we should
change?
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-03-14 16:55:02 | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-03-14 16:35:47 | Re: refactoring basebackup.c (zstd workers) |