@@ -746,7 +746,7 @@ LockAcquireExtended(const LOCKTAG *locktag,
746746 ResourceOwner owner ;
747747 uint32 hashcode ;
748748 LWLock * partitionLock ;
749- int status ;
749+ bool found_conflict ;
750750 bool log_lock = false;
751751
752752 if (lockmethodid <= 0 || lockmethodid >= lengthof (LockMethods ))
@@ -979,21 +979,19 @@ LockAcquireExtended(const LOCKTAG *locktag,
979979 * (That's last because most complex check.)
980980 */
981981 if (lockMethodTable -> conflictTab [lockmode ] & lock -> waitMask )
982- status = STATUS_FOUND ;
982+ found_conflict = true ;
983983 else
984- status = LockCheckConflicts (lockMethodTable , lockmode ,
984+ found_conflict = LockCheckConflicts (lockMethodTable , lockmode ,
985985 lock , proclock );
986986
987- if (status == STATUS_OK )
987+ if (! found_conflict )
988988 {
989989 /* No conflict with held or previously requested locks */
990990 GrantLock (lock , proclock , lockmode );
991991 GrantLockLocal (locallock , owner );
992992 }
993993 else
994994 {
995- Assert (status == STATUS_FOUND );
996-
997995 /*
998996 * We can't acquire the lock immediately. If caller specified no
999997 * blocking, remove useless table entries and return
@@ -1330,7 +1328,7 @@ RemoveLocalLock(LOCALLOCK *locallock)
13301328 * LockCheckConflicts -- test whether requested lock conflicts
13311329 * with those already granted
13321330 *
1333- * Returns STATUS_FOUND if conflict, STATUS_OK if no conflict.
1331+ * Returns true if conflict, false if no conflict.
13341332 *
13351333 * NOTES:
13361334 * Here's what makes this complicated: one process's locks don't
@@ -1340,7 +1338,7 @@ RemoveLocalLock(LOCALLOCK *locallock)
13401338 * the same group. So, we must subtract off these locks when determining
13411339 * whether the requested new lock conflicts with those already held.
13421340 */
1343- int
1341+ bool
13441342LockCheckConflicts (LockMethod lockMethodTable ,
13451343 LOCKMODE lockmode ,
13461344 LOCK * lock ,
@@ -1367,7 +1365,7 @@ LockCheckConflicts(LockMethod lockMethodTable,
13671365 if (!(conflictMask & lock -> grantMask ))
13681366 {
13691367 PROCLOCK_PRINT ("LockCheckConflicts: no conflict" , proclock );
1370- return STATUS_OK ;
1368+ return false ;
13711369 }
13721370
13731371 /*
@@ -1393,7 +1391,7 @@ LockCheckConflicts(LockMethod lockMethodTable,
13931391 if (totalConflictsRemaining == 0 )
13941392 {
13951393 PROCLOCK_PRINT ("LockCheckConflicts: resolved (simple)" , proclock );
1396- return STATUS_OK ;
1394+ return false ;
13971395 }
13981396
13991397 /* If no group locking, it's definitely a conflict. */
@@ -1402,7 +1400,7 @@ LockCheckConflicts(LockMethod lockMethodTable,
14021400 Assert (proclock -> tag .myProc == MyProc );
14031401 PROCLOCK_PRINT ("LockCheckConflicts: conflicting (simple)" ,
14041402 proclock );
1405- return STATUS_FOUND ;
1403+ return true ;
14061404 }
14071405
14081406 /*
@@ -1439,7 +1437,7 @@ LockCheckConflicts(LockMethod lockMethodTable,
14391437 {
14401438 PROCLOCK_PRINT ("LockCheckConflicts: resolved (group)" ,
14411439 proclock );
1442- return STATUS_OK ;
1440+ return false ;
14431441 }
14441442 }
14451443 otherproclock = (PROCLOCK * )
@@ -1449,7 +1447,7 @@ LockCheckConflicts(LockMethod lockMethodTable,
14491447
14501448 /* Nope, it's a real conflict. */
14511449 PROCLOCK_PRINT ("LockCheckConflicts: conflicting (group)" , proclock );
1452- return STATUS_FOUND ;
1450+ return true ;
14531451}
14541452
14551453/*
0 commit comments