Re: BUFFER_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE is used in ginbuildempty().

Hello,

At Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:54:31 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in <10710.1405626871@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes:
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> > <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >> I don't understand the point of having these GIN_EXCLUSIVE / GIN_SHARED
> >> symbols.  It's not like we could do anything different than
> >> BUFFER_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE etc instead.  It there was a GinLockBuffer() it
> >> might make more sense to have specialized symbols, but as it is it seems
> >> pointless.

I agree with you. From the eyes not specialized for each AM, of
me, the translation-only symbols didn't make me so happy.

> > It's a pattern common to the index AMs. I think it's kind of pointless
> > myself, but as long as we're doing it we might as well be consistent.
> 
> I think that to the extent that these symbols are used in APIs above the
> direct buffer-access layer, they are useful --- for example using
> BT_READ/BT_WRITE in _bt_search calls seems like a useful increment of
> readability.  GIN seems to have less of that than some of the other AMs,
> but I do see GIN_SHARE being used that way in some calls.
> 
> BTW, there's one direct usage of BUFFER_LOCK_EXCLUSIVE in the GIST code
> as well, which should probably be replaced with GIST_EXCLUSIVE if we're
> trying to be consistent.

Though I brought up this topic, this kind of consistency seems
not needed so much. If so, it seems better to be left as it is.

regards,

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center