Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 3:17 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2.
> @@ -213,6 +213,7 @@ typedef enum BuiltinTrancheIds
>   LWTRANCHE_WAL_INSERT,
>   LWTRANCHE_BUFFER_CONTENT,
>   LWTRANCHE_BUFFER_IO_IN_PROGRESS,
> + LWTRANCHE_PROC,
>   LWTRANCHE_FIRST_USER_DEFINED
>  } BuiltinTrancheIds;
>
> Other trancheids are based on the name of their corresponding
> LWLock, don't you think it is better to name it as
> LWTRANCHE_BACKEND for the sake of consistency?  Also consider
> changing name at other places in patch for this tranche.

Hmm, don't think I agree with this.  I think LWTRANCHE_PROC is better. Remember, backendLock is intended to distinguish
thatobject from
 
everything else in the PGPROC; but here we're trying to distinguish
stuff in the PGPROC from stuff in other data structures altogether.
That's an important distinction.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company