On 1 October 2018 at 06:18, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> It occurred to me that it'd be reasonable to insist that the caller
> holds a lock *at least as strong* as the one being recorded in the RTE,
> and that there's also been discussions about verifying that some lock
> is held when something like heap_open(foo, NoLock) is attempted.
> So I dusted off the part of 0001 that did that, producing the
> attached delta patch.
My imagination struggles to think of a case, but perhaps one day in
the future we might have a lock manager that coordinates locks on
multiple nodes. If so, is there not a risk that one day we might have
a lock level greater than AccessExclusiveLock, meaning the following
would get broken:
+ for (slockmode = lockmode + 1;
+ slockmode <= AccessExclusiveLock;
+ slockmode++)
For index strategies we do:
#define BTGreaterStrategyNumber 5
#define BTMaxStrategyNumber 5
So would it not be better to add the following to lockdefs.h?
#define MaxLockLevel 8
then use that to terminate the loop.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
