On 2015-09-08 13:29:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > I like this approach, though I think clearly it needs more performance > testing.
Yea, obviously. I did run this on a slightly bigger machine yesterday and it gave consistent ~8% performance improvements. > The method of determining the tranche IDs is totally awful, though. I > assume that's just a dirty hack for the POC and not something you'd > seriously consider doing. If you're referring to assigning fixed ids in the guts of lwlocks.c - yea, that was really more of a quick hack. I think we should put a enum into lwlock.h with fixed tranch ids with the final member being LWTRANCHE_FIRST_DYNAMIC or so. 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
