On 05/09/2016 11:55, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > 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. >
Didn't saw that Simon just committed it, sorry about it. -- 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
