Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 8:57 AM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 00:54, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 6:20 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 4:34 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have modified 0001 and 0002 slightly, Basically, instead of two
> > > > function CheckAndSetLockHeld and CheckAndReSetLockHeld, I have created
> > > > a one function.
> > > >
> > >
> > > +CheckAndSetLockHeld(LOCALLOCK *locallock, bool value)
> > >
> > > Can we rename the parameter as lock_held, acquired or something like
> > > that so that it indicates what it intends to do and probably add a
> > > comment for that variable atop of function?
> >
> > Done
> >
>
> I've looked at the patches and ISTM these work as expected.

Thanks for verifying.

> IsRelationExtensionLockHeld and IsPageLockHeld are used only when
> assertion is enabled. So how about making CheckAndSetLockHeld work
> only if USE_ASSERT_CHECKING to avoid overheads?

That makes sense to me so updated the patch.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com