Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Alexander Korotkov <
> a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Alexander Korotkov
> >> > <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> >> > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera <
> alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >> So far as I can tell, there are three patches in flight here:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> * replication slot IO lwlocks
> >> > >> * ability of extensions to request tranches dynamically
> >> > >> * PGPROC
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The first one hasn't been reviewed at all, but the other two have
> seen a
> >> > >> bit of discussion and evolution. Is anyone doing any more
> reviewing?
> >> > >
> >> > > I'd like to add another one: fixed tranche id for each SLRU.
> >> >
> >> > +1 for this. The patch looks good and I will commit it if nobody
> objects.
> >> >
> >>
> >> +1. Patch looks good to me as well, but I have one related question:
> >> Is there a reason why we should not assign ReplicationOrigins a
> >> fixed tranche id and then we might want to even get away with
> >> LWLockRegisterTranche()?
> >
> >
> > +1. I think we should do this.
> >
>
> Okay, Attached patch assigns fixed trancheid for ReplicationOrigins.
> I don't think we can remove LWLockRegisterTranche(), as that will be
> required for assigning transcheid's for extensions, so didn't change that
> part of code.
>

OK. This one looks good for me too.

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company