Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ildus Kurbangaliev <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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: 2015-09-23 15:22:55
Message-ID: 20150923152254.GR295765@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
> <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> > Yes, probably.
> > I'm going to change API calls as you suggested earlier.
> > How you do think the tranches registration after initialization should
> > look like?
>
> I don't see any need to change anything there. The idea there is that
> an extension allocates a tranche ID and are responsible for making
> sure that every backend that uses that tranche finds out about the ID
> that was chosen and registers a matching tranche definition. How to
> do that is the extension's problem. Maybe eventually we'll provide
> some tools to make that easier, but that's separate from the work
> we're trying to do here.

FWIW I had assumed, when you created the tranche stuff, that SLRU users
would all allocate their lwlocks from a tranche provided by slru.c
itself, and the locks would be stored in the slru Ctl struct. Does that
not work for some reason?

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stephen Frost 2015-09-23 15:24:01 Re: unclear about row-level security USING vs. CHECK
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-09-23 15:11:07 Re: unclear about row-level security USING vs. CHECK