| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(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: | 2016-09-05 09:42:52 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+jJPZD4=Ywrsgk0C+LD49TyZn3fu+VuYh8o9KDfXd1xyqQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 18 June 2016 at 04:28, 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.
Committed, thanks.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-09-05 09:47:18 | Re: condition variables |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-09-05 09:38:46 | Re: Logical decoding slots can go backwards when used from SQL, docs are wrong |