Re: FlexLocks

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>> We could alternatively change one or the other of them to be a
>> struct with one member, but I think the cure might be worse than
>> the disease.  By my count, we are talking about saving perhaps as
>> many as 34 lines of code changes here, and that's only if
>> complicating the type handling doesn't require any changes to
>> places that are untouched at present, which I suspect it would.
>
> So I stepped through all the changes of this type, and I notice that
> most of them are in areas where we've talked about likely benefits
> of creating new FlexLock variants instead of staying with LWLocks;
> if any of that is done (as seems likely), it further reduces the
> impact from 34 lines.  If we take care of LWLockHeldByMe() as you
> describe, I'll concede the FlexLockId changes.

Updated patches attached.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company