On 2014-04-24 12:43:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 2014-04-24 11:02:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> 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.
> 
> > I don't think LWLockAssignBatch() is that easy without introducing
> > layering violations. It can't just return a pointer out of the main
> > lwlock array that then can be ++ed clientside because MainLWLockArray's
> > stride isn't sizeof(LWLock).
> 
> Meh.  I knew this business of using pointers instead of indexes would
> have some downsides.
> 
> We could return the array stride ... kinda ugly, but since there's
> probably only one consumer for this API, it's not *that* bad.  Could
> wrap the stride-increment in a macro, perhaps.

I think I am just going to wait for 9.5 where I sure hope we can
allocate the buffer lwlocks outside the main array...

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- 
 Andres Freund                     http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to