Re: 8.2 Partition lock changes and resource queuing.

Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> writes:
> The other approach I wondered about was arranging for the resource locks
> and related data structures to all use an *additional* partition lock -
> which would mean faking a LOCKTAG that always hashed to
> NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS, and using that everywhere in the resource code...

That seems mighty ugly, as well as defeating the purpose of spreading
the LWLock contention around evenly. I'd go for letting the resource
locks go into their natural hash partitions, and making a separate LWLock
for your other data structures. (Some day you might get to the point of
wanting to partition the other data structures, in which case you'd be
glad you separated the locks.)

regards, tom lane