On 2016-05-05 16:25:38 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Please review and comment before Monday, if you can.
> Overall, I think this looks pretty great. Thanks for pulling it
> together so quickly.
> +2016-04-10 [008608b9d] Avoid the use of a separate spinlock to protect a
> + <para>
> + Use atomic operations, rather than a spinlock, to protect an LWLock's
> + wait queue (Andres Freund)
> + </para>
> + </listitem>
> + <listitem>
> This was basically an attempt to cure a defect in 48354581a and could
> perhaps be lumped under that item.
It's also an independent performance improvement (sadly), and has the
potential for issues; so there's *some* benefits on keeping this as its
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: