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.
+1 > +<!-- > +2016-04-10 [008608b9d] Avoid the use of a separate spinlock to protect a > LWLock > +--> > + <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 own entry. 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
