Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches

> On Sep 6, 2015, at 2:36 PM, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de wrote:
>
> On 2015-09-05 12:48:12 +0300, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
>> Another parts require a some discussion so I didn't touch them yet.
>
> At this point I don't see any point in further review until these are
> addressed.
>
>> The idea to create an individual tranches for individual LWLocks have
>> come from Heikki Linnakangas and I also think that tranche is a good place to keep
>> LWLock name.
>
> I think it's rather ugly.
>
>> Base of these tranches points to MainLWLockArray
>
> And that's just plain wrong. The base of a tranche ought to point to the
> first lwlock in it.

Ok, I've kept only one tranche for individual LWLocks

> On Sep 2, 2015, at 1:43 AM, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de wrote:
>
> I don't really like the tranche model as in the patch right now. I'd
> rather have in a way that we have one tranch for all the individual
> lwlocks, where the tranche points to an array of names alongside the
> tranche's name. And then for the others we just supply the tranche name,
> but leave the name array empty, whereas a name can be generated.

Maybe I don't understand something here, but why add extra field to all tranches
if we need only one array (especially the array for individual LWLocks).

----
Ildus Kurbangaliev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com <http://www.postgrespro.com/>
The Russian Postgres Company