On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:24 AM, Aleksander Alekseev <a.aleks...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: >> Basically, the burden for you to impose a new coding rule on everybody >> who uses shared hash tables in the future is very high. > > I fixed an issue you described. Number of spinlocks doesn't depend of > NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS anymore and could be specified for each hash table > on a calling side.
Thanks, this looks way better. Some more comments: - I don't think there's any good reason for this patch to change the calling convention for ShmemInitHash(). Maybe that's a good idea and maybe it isn't, but it's a separate issue from what this patch is doing, and if we're going to do it at all, it should be discussed separately. Let's leave it out of this patch. - I would not provide an option to change the number of freelist mutexes. Let's dump DEFAULT_MUTEXES_NUM and MAX_MUTEXES_NUM and have FREELIST_MUTEXES_NUM. The value of 32 which you selected is fine with me. - The change to LOG2_NUM_LOCK_PARTITIONS in lwlock.h looks like an independent change. Again, leave it out of this patch and submit it separately with its own benchmarking data if you want to argue for it. I think if you make these changes this patch will be quite a bit smaller and in pretty good shape. Thanks for working on this. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers