On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 6:43 PM, and...@anarazel.de <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > Why a new tranche for each of these? And it can't be correct that each > has the same base?
I complained about the same-base problem before. Apparently, that got ignored. > I don't really like the tranche model as in the patch right now. I'd > rather have in a way that we have one tranch for all the individual > lwlocks, where the tranche points to an array of names alongside the > tranche's name. And then for the others we just supply the tranche name, > but leave the name array empty, whereas a name can be generated. That's an interesting idea. -- 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
