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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
