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 <craig@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> On 18 June 2016 at 11:28, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@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
