On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 10:04 PM Robert Haas <robertmh...@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
