On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 12:44 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 10:04 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Regarding 0004, I can't really see a reason for this function to take
> > a LockRelId as a parameter rather than two separate OIDs. I also can't
> > entirely see why it should be called LockRelationId. Maybe
> > LockRelationInDatabaseById(Oid dbid, Oid relid, LOCKMODE lockmode)?
> > Note that neither caller actually has a LockRelId available; both have
> > to construct one.
>
> Actually we already have an existing function
> UnlockRelationId(LockRelId *relid, LOCKMODE lockmode) so it makes more
> sense to have a parallel lock function. Do you still think we should
> change?
Oh! OK, well, then what you did makes sense, for consistency. Didn't
realize that.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com