Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches

From: "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ildus Kurbangaliev <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches
Date: 2015-09-15 18:44:12
Message-ID: 20150915184412.GC2086@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2015-09-15 14:39:51 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> We could, but since that would be strictly more annoying and less
> flexible than what we've already got, why would we?

I don't find the current approach of having to define tranches in every
backend all that convenient. It also completely breaks down if you want
to display locks from tranches that are only visible within a subset of
the backends - not that unlikely given that shared_preload_libraries is
a PITA.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-09-15 19:06:31 Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-09-15 18:39:51 Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches