Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... Seems like it's nearly a one-liner fix, too.
> Well, what I have in mind is a bit bigger, but not large. See attached
> patch.
Hmm, you do need two instances of the loop, don't you? Might be
better to refactor along the lines of
if (has_lock_conflicts(te, running_te) ||
has_lock_conflicts(running_te, te))
// has a conflict
...
// true if te1 requires exclusive lock on any dependency of te2
static bool
has_lock_conflicts(te1, te2)
{
for (j = 0; j < te1->nLockDeps; j++)
{
for (k = 0; k < te2->nDeps; k++)
{
if (te1->lockDeps[j] == te2->dependencies[k])
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
