On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> OTOH, the LWLock mechanism has been stable for long enough now that >>> we can probably suppose this struct is no more subject to churn than >>> any other widely-known one, so maybe that consideration is no longer >>> significant. > >> On the whole, I'd say it's been more stable than most. But even if we >> do decide to change it, I'm not sure that really matters very much. > > Actually, the real value of a module-local struct definition is that you > can be pretty darn sure that nothing except the code in that file is > manipulating the struct contents. I would've preferred that we expose > only an abstract struct definition, but don't quite see how to do that > if we're going to embed the things in buffer headers.
Agreed. I think it's good to keep struct definitions private as much as possible, and I do. But I don't think this is going to cause a big problem either; lwlocks have been around for a long time and the conventions for using them are pretty well understood, I think. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
