Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ildus Kurbangaliev <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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: 2015-11-19 21:26:49
Message-ID: 20151119212649.GB6092@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2015-11-19 14:58:05 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > It's really not particularly convenient to allocate tranches right
> > now. You have to store at least the identifier in shared memory and
> > then redo the registration in each process. Otherwise some processes
> > can't identify them. Which of rather inconvenient of you want to
> > register some at runtime
>
> Sure, that's why we're proposing to use an enum or a list of #defines
> for that. I don't see a need to do any more than that.

That works fine for builtin stuff, but not at all for extensions doing
it.

If you do register locks at runtime, instead of shared_preload_library -
something you surely agree makes some things easier by not requiring a
restart - you really don't have any way to force the registration to
happen in each backend.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-11-19 21:44:36 Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches
Previous Message Dean Rasheed 2015-11-19 21:22:28 Re: Bug in numeric multiplication