On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 1:18 PM Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > Of course relation_open() takes a lock, but sometimes relation_open() > is hidden in the call stack below other functions where it's not so > obvious.
Probably true, although some of those are probably code that could stand to be improved. > > Yeah, that's not a terrible idea. I still like the idea I thought > > Bertrand was pursuing, namely, to take no lock in > > recordDependencyOn() > > but assert that the caller has previously acquired one. However, we > > could still do the Assert() check with this design when NoLock is > > passed, so I think this is a reasonable alternative to that design. > > I'd have to see the patch to see whether I liked the end result. But > I'm guessing that involves a lot of non-mechanical changes in the call > sites, and also relies on test coverage for all of them. Sure, fair enough. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
