Re: New lock types

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: New lock types
Date: 2002-10-06 20:48:46
Message-ID: 12139.1033937326@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com> writes:
> I think creating a new LWLockId (BTFreeListLock?) can help here. The
> operations on freelist are short lived and rather infrequent so it
> doesn't seem to matter that it is global to all indexes.

Seems like a really bad idea to me ... what makes you think that this
would not be a bottleneck? You'd have to take such a lock during every
index-page split, which is not that uncommon.

> Another way
> would be to create one LockId per index, but it seems a waste to me.

No, you should be looking at a way to represent index locking in the
standard lock manager, not as an LWLock. We've already got a concept
of page-level lockable entities there.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2002-10-06 21:58:04 Naming convention
Previous Message Greg Copeland 2002-10-06 20:21:05 Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large