Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> That's certainly a fair concern, and it might even be worse than
> O(n^2). On the other hand, the current approach involves scanning the
> entire ProcArray for every snapshot, even if nothing has changed and
> 90% of the backends are sitting around playing tiddlywinks, so I don't
> think I'm giving up something for nothing except perhaps in the case
> where there is only one active backend in the entire system. On the
> other hand, you could be entirely correct that the current
> implementation wins in the uncontended case. Without testing it, I
> just don't know...
Sure. Like I said, I don't know that this can't be made to work.
I'm just pointing out that we have to keep an eye on the single-backend
case as well as the many-backends case.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jeff Davis||Date: 2011-08-23 17:23:28|
|Subject: Range Types|
|Previous:||From: David E. Wheeler||Date: 2011-08-23 16:55:18|
|Subject: Re: Getting rid of pg_pltemplate|