Re: Hot Standby on git

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hot Standby on git
Date: 2009-10-05 14:19:05
Message-ID: 6950.1254752345@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I don't see how that helps at all. The objective of lock counters was to
> know if we can skip acquiring an LWlock on all lock partitions. This
> change keeps the lock counters yet acquires the locks we were trying to
> avoid. This change needs some justification since it is not a bug fix.

[ scratches head ... ] Why is hot standby messing with this sort of
thing at all? It sounds like a performance optimization that should
be considered separately, and *later*.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2009-10-05 14:31:45 Re: Privileges and inheritance
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-10-05 14:14:36 Re: Privileges and inheritance