On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2015-07-29 12:54:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> I would try to avoid changing lwlock.c. It's pretty easy when so >> doing to create mechanisms that work now but make further upgrades to >> the general lwlock mechanism difficult. I'd like to avoid that. > > I'm massively doubtful that re-implementing parts of lwlock.c is the > better outcome. Then you have two different infrastructures you need to > improve over time.
That is also true, but I don't think we're going to be duplicating anything from lwlock.c in this case. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
