Re: [PATCH] bufmgr: tighten LWLock:BufferMapping on InvalidateBuffer

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Alexandre Felipe <o(dot)alexandre(dot)felipe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Yuhang Qiu <iamqyh(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bufmgr: tighten LWLock:BufferMapping on InvalidateBuffer
Date: 2026-08-24 12:25:20
Message-ID: lp2wqvtafhtyxxy3tr27haf7shgq2qhtq2rfsfihpg56zmb6nw@5zvkv7upyctk
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

Please don't top-quote.

On 2026-08-24 09:16:28 +0100, Alexandre Felipe wrote:
> I also studied the current LWLock the implementation and there is room to
> make the no-contention path faster. Is that something worth doing,
> or is it pointless?

Hard to say without knowing what you're actually going to propose. Of couse
making the uncontended path faster is attractive, but correctness / complexity
/ contended performance all are also not uninmportant.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sami Imseih 2026-08-24 12:26:38 Re: pgstat: Flush some statistics within running transactions, take 2
Previous Message vignesh C 2026-08-24 12:01:11 Assertion failure in GetSubscriptionRelations() with concurrent DROP TABLE