From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Jason Petersen <jason(at)citusdata(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |
Date: | 2017-05-10 17:28:39 |
Message-ID: | 28251.1494437319@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2017-05-10 10:29:02 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> As long as it doesn't block, the change in lock strength doesn't actually
>> make any speed difference does it?
> The issue isn't the strength, but that we currently have this weird
> hackery around open_share_lock():
Oh! I'd forgotten about that. Yes, if we change that then we'd
need to do some performance checking.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | boshomi | 2017-05-10 17:37:50 | BUG #14646: performance hint to remove |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-05-10 16:24:50 | Re: Concurrent ALTER SEQUENCE RESTART Regression |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-05-10 18:09:04 | Re: [POC] hash partitioning |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-05-10 17:13:59 | Re: Should pg_current_wal_location() become pg_current_wal_lsn() |