On 20/06/2016 06:28, Thomas Munro wrote: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 18 June 2016 at 11:28, Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> >> wrote: >>> Several times now when reading, debugging and writing code I've wished >>> that LWLockHeldByMe assertions specified the expected mode, especially >>> where exclusive locking is required. >>> >>> What do you think about something like the attached? See also an >>> example of use. I will add this to the next commitfest. >> >> I've wanted this before too [...] >
same here. > Before ab5194e6f (25 December 2014) held_lwlocks didn't record the mode. > I just reviewed both patches. They applies cleanly on current HEAD, work as intended and make check run smoothly. Patches are pretty straightforward, so I don't have much to say. My only remark is on following comment: + * LWLockHeldByMeInMode - test whether my process holds a lock in mode X Maybe something like "test whether my process holds a lock in given mode" would be better? Otherwise, I think they're ready for committer. -- Julien Rouhaud http://dalibo.com - http://dalibo.org -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
