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?
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com