On Fri, 2009-08-28 at 14:44 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
> I'd previously implemented this just by copying and pasting and making
> some changes, perhaps not the most desirable way but I thought adding
> another parameter to all existing invocations would be a bit
> excessive.
That's the way I would implement it also, but would call it
LWLockAcquireWithPriority() so that it's purpose is clear, rather than
refer to its implementation, which may change.
> I've tested it fairly thoroughly,
Please send the tested patch, if this isn't it. What tests were made?
> in the context of using it in AdvanceXLInsertBuffer for acquiring the
> WALWriteLock.
Apologies if you'd already suggested that recently. I read a few of your
posts but not all of them.
I don't think WALWriteLock from AdvanceXLInsertBuffer is an important
area, but I don't see any harm from it either.
-- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com