On 2/1/18 19:21, Simon Riggs wrote:
> If we really can't persuade you of that, it doesn't sink the patch. We
> can have the WAL pointer itself - it wouldn't save space but it would
> at least alleviate the spinlock.
Do you want to send in an alternative patch that preserves the WAL
pointer and only changes the locking?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services