| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ildus Kurbangaliev <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com" <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive |
| Date: | 2015-09-13 20:21:24 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob-hmvCZaL91fg8TOz-mKMJMHMNiQiof4e6kJ646UODww@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
<i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> This is pretty much the same that my patch does. There is
> two API calls (for a size determination and a tranche creation), except
> MainLWLockArray is used only for individual LWLocks.
It's not really the same. Your patch doesn't provide any interlock to
ensure that the number of locks requested for a particular subsystem
during shmem sizing is the same as the number actually created during
shmem setup. That's an interlock I'd really like to have.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-09-13 20:32:38 | Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-09-13 19:59:35 | Re: RLS open items are vague and unactionable |