Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 2014-04-24 15:56:45 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >> Another idea is to add an LWLockAssignBatch(int) function that assigns a >> range of locks in one call. That would be very simple, and I think it would >> be less likely to break things than a new global flag. I would be OK with >> sneaking that into 9.4 still.
> I don't really see the advantage tbh. Assuming we always can avoid the > spinlock initially seems simple enough - and I have significant doubts > that anything but buffer locks will need enough locks that it matters > for other users. FWIW, I like the LWLockAssignBatch idea a lot better than the currently proposed patch. LWLockAssign is a low-level function that has no business making risky assumptions about the context it's invoked in. The other ideas are 9.5 material at this point, since they involve research --- but I agree with Heikki that LWLockAssignBatch could be snuck into 9.4 still. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers