mvcc/backend: rename Lock() to RLock() in ReadTx interface #10506
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
For better code readability, renaming Lock() to RLock() in ReadTx interface.
This is my first attempt to address #10505. Personally I do not think we should wrap RLock() in a function named Lock(). But renaming the function does come with challenges. It is cause by the fact that ReadTx interface in embedded in BatchTx interface, and RLock() does not have a proper semantic under BatchTx interface.
Please let me know if this PR actually helps improve readability, or it adds more confusion.
FYI, I also added some comments to explain how the locks affect backend concurrency on reads and writes.