Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention
Date: 2015-07-29 18:18:49
Message-ID: 20150729181849.GI24218@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2015-07-29 12:54:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I would try to avoid changing lwlock.c. It's pretty easy when so
> doing to create mechanisms that work now but make further upgrades to
> the general lwlock mechanism difficult. I'd like to avoid that.

I'm massively doubtful that re-implementing parts of lwlock.c is the
better outcome. Then you have two different infrastructures you need to
improve over time.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Piotr Stefaniak 2015-07-29 18:26:55 Division by zero in planner.c:grouping_planner()
Previous Message Corey Huinker 2015-07-29 18:01:00 Re: dblink: add polymorphic functions.