Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> We currently have
> * bool SpinLockFree(slock_t *lock)
> * Tests if the lock is free. Returns true if free, false if
> locked.
> * This does *not* change the state of the lock.
> [ which isn't used ]
> Thus: Let's just remove SpinLockFree() / S_LOCK_FREE()?
Yeah. I think they were included in the original design on the
theory that we'd need 'em someday. But if we haven't found a use
yet we probably never will. So +1 for narrowing the API a tad.
(We'd lose some error checking ability in the S_LOCK_TEST code,
but probably that's not worth worrying about.)
regards, tom lane
