On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 08:16:47PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > The reason things got this way is that we've been loading more and more > functionality onto the array of PGPROC pointers that is, more or less > incidentally, maintained by sinval.c. I'm thinking that it'd be a good > idea to remove most of that stuff from sinval.c and put it into a > separate module that maintains its own array of PGPROC pointers with a > separate lock. There's no reason why, eg, GetSnapshotData needs to > conflict with transfer of SI inval messages, which is what SInvalLock > was originally designed to protect.
I agree this is a good idea. I might mention that I was going to put some things in the PGPROC array for MultiXactId, then saw that getting the SInvalLock for operations on those would abuse the lock too much -- that's when I decided to move them to a separate struct. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]surnet.cl>) "In Europe they call me Niklaus Wirth; in the US they call me Nickel's worth. That's because in Europe they call me by name, and in the US by value!" ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
