Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: >> Is there any way to typedef our way out of it [?] > Well, if we just say: > > typedef FlexLockId LWLockId; > > ...that's about equivalent to the #define from the compiler's > point of view. Bummer -- I was hoping there was some equivalent to "subclassing" that I just didn't know about. :-( > 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. -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
