On 2025-Dec-18, Amit Langote wrote: > Thanks. Updated the commit message too to be more accurate in the > attached updated patch.
Looks good to me. I would add an Assert(num_held_lwlocks == 0) at the end of LWLockReleaseAll(), to make it clear that it's idempotent (which is important for the case where ProcKill will call it again shortly after). Are you going to push this soon? Looking at ProcKill, I notice that we do some LWLock ops after its LWLockReleaseAll() call, which seems a bit silly. Why not do that right after the "if (MyProc->lockGroupLeader != NULL)" block instead? Nothing uses LWLocks from there on. This can be a separate commit. -- Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
