On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 12:44 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 10:04 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Regarding 0004, I can't really see a reason for this function to take > > a LockRelId as a parameter rather than two separate OIDs. I also can't > > entirely see why it should be called LockRelationId. Maybe > > LockRelationInDatabaseById(Oid dbid, Oid relid, LOCKMODE lockmode)? > > Note that neither caller actually has a LockRelId available; both have > > to construct one. > > Actually we already have an existing function > UnlockRelationId(LockRelId *relid, LOCKMODE lockmode) so it makes more > sense to have a parallel lock function. Do you still think we should > change?
Oh! OK, well, then what you did makes sense, for consistency. Didn't realize that. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
