Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now maybe there is some better way to do this, but at the moment,
> I'm not seeing it. If we call them all LWLocks, but only some of
> them support LWLockAcquire(), then that's going to be pretty
> weird.
Is there any way to typedef our way out of it, such that a LWLock
*is a* FlexLock, but a FlexLock isn't a LWLock? If we could do
that, you couldn't use just a plain old FlexLock in LWLockAcquire(),
but you could do the cleanups, etc., that you want.
-Kevin
