On 2015-09-16 08:31:48 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> All of the index methods have their own synonyms of the BUFFER_LOCK_*
> constants, for example:
>
> #define GIN_SHARE BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE
> #define GIST_SHARE BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE
> #define HASH_READ BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE
> #define BT_READ BUFFER_LOCK_SHARE
>
> But most of them pass their constants directly to LockBuffer. So if they
> were ever defined to be anything else, things would fall apart pretty
> comprehensively. (Hash index also passes them to LockBuffer, but only
> indirectly via some utility functions).
>
> What does this pseudo-encapsulation get us? It seems like we have a
> separation of spelling, but no real separation of concerns.
I was annoyed by this more than once too. It also bugs me that unlocking
a buffer is spelled LockBuffer(..., BUFFER_LOCK_UNLOCK) - that just
reads wrong.
FWIW, I think LockBuffer() as a extern C function is a pretty bad idea too -
it's full of essentially unpredictable branches which on the caller's
side are all constant.
Greetings,
Andres Freund