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 wrote:
>>> On 18 June 2016 at 11:28, Thomas Munro
>>> wrote:
Several times now when reading, debugging and writing code I've wished
that LWLockHeldByMe
On 20/06/2016 06:28, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
>> On 18 June 2016 at 11:28, Thomas Munro
>> wrote:
>>> Several times now when reading, debugging and writing code I've wished
>>> that LWLockHeldByMe assertions specified the expected mode, especially
On 18 June 2016 at 04:28, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>
> 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 atta
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 18 June 2016 at 11:28, Thomas Munro
> 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.
>>
>>
On 18 June 2016 at 11:28, Thomas Munro
wrote:
> Hi hackers,
>
> 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 att
Hi hackers,
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
