On 2015-09-06 22:57:04 +0300, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
> Ok, I've kept only one tranche for individual LWLocks
But you've added the lock names as a statically sized array to all
tranches? Why not just a pointer to an array that's either NULL ('not
individualy named locks') or appropriately sized?
> > 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).
It's cheap to add an optional pointer field to an individual
tranche. It'll be far less cheap to extend the max number of
tranches. But it's also just ugly to to use a tranche per lock - they're
intended to describe 'runs' of locks.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
