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

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?

There is some work left related to testing some parts of the patch and
I can do some more review, but it started to look good to me, so I am
planning to push this in the coming week (say by Wednesday or so)
unless there are some major comments. There are primarily two parts
of the patch-series (a) Assert that we don't acquire a heavyweight
lock on another object after relation extension lock. (b) Allow
relation extension lock to conflict among the parallel group members.
On similar lines there are two patches for page locks.

I think we have discussed in detail about LWLock approach and it seems
that it might be tricky than we initially thought especially with some
of the latest findings where we have noticed that there are multiple
cases where we can try to re-acquire the relation extension lock and
other things which we have discussed. Also, all of us don't agree
with that idea.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com