Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches
От | Jesper Pedersen |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 568BCB0E.4030104@redhat.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches
Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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 ? lwlock.c: + * GetLWLockAddinTranche - returns the base address of LWLock from the + * specified tranche. + * + * Caller needs to retrieve the requested number of LWLocks starting from + * the base lock address returned by this API. This can be used for + * tranches that are requested by using RequestAddinLWLockTranche() API. + */ +LWLockPadded * +GetLWLockAddinTranche(const char *tranche_name) +{ I understand why the signature is the way it is, but LWLock * GetLWLockAddinTranche(const char *tranche_name) would be nicer to work with for extensions IMHO. Not likely worth the trouble though. Thanks for working on this. Best regards, Jesper
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: