>
> Instead, wouldn't it be simpler to update LockAcquireExtended() to
> take a new argument, like logLockFailure, to control whether
> a lock failure should be logged directly? I’ve adjusted the patch
> accordingly and attached it. Please let me know what you think!
>
> Regards,
Thank you!
It's very simple and nice.
It seems like it can also handle other lock failure cases by extending
logLockFailure.
I agree with this propose.
Regards,
