> > I think I would prefer to patch always. Is there a particular > > reason you can't do that? > > We could patch all the indirect calls into direct calls, but I don't > think it's worth bothering: most simply don't matter. I still think it would be better to patch always. > Each backend wants a different patch, so alternative() doesn't cut it. > We could look at generalizing alternative() I guess, but it works fine > so I didn't want to touch it. You could at least use a common function (with the replacement passed in as argument) for lock prefixes and your stuff -Andi
