Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches

[Ildus Kurbangaliev]

On Sep 6, 2015, at 2:36 PM, and...@anarazel.de wrote: On 2015-09-05 12:48:12 +0300, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote: Another parts require a some discussion so I didn't touch them yet. At this point I don't see any point in further review until these are addressed. The idea to create an individual tranches for individual LWLocks have come from Heikki Linnakangas and I also think that tranche is a good place to keep LWLock name. I think it's rather ugly. Base of these tranches points to MainLWLockArray And that's just plain wrong. The base of a tranche ought to point to the first lwlock in it. Ok, I've kept only one tranche for individual LWLocks On Sep 2, 2015, at 1:43 AM, and...@anarazel.de wrote: 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. Maybe I don't understand something here, but why add extra field to all tranches if we need only one array (especially the array for individual LWLocks). ---- Ildus Kurbangaliev Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company

lwlocks_refactor_v2.patch
Description: Binary data