Re: beta5 ...

From: Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, vadim4o(at)email(dot)com
Subject: Re: beta5 ...
Date: 2001-02-17 03:43:31
Message-ID: 3.0.5.32.20010217114331.010c3330@192.228.128.13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At 04:17 PM 2/16/01 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>Vadim says (and I agree) that we really ought to implement a new
>lightweight lock manager that would fall between spinlocks and regular
>locks in terms of overhead and functionality. But it's not reasonable

Will there be an arbitrary user locking feature? E.g. lock on arbitrary
text string. That would be great :).

BTW, is 7.1 going to be a bit slower than 7.0? Or just Beta 5? Just
curious. Don't mind waiting for 7.2 for the speed-up if necessary.

Cheerio,
Link.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-02-17 03:46:05 Re: Performance lossage in checkpoint dumping
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-02-17 03:42:59 Re: Performance lossage in checkpoint dumping