Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.

2016-11-14 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-11-12 11:30:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund writes: > > > Committed after simplifying the Makefile. > > > > While I have no particular objection to adding these tests, the > > commit log's claim that this will improve buildfarm

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.

2016-11-14 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-11-14 12:14:10 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-11-12 11:42:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Andres Freund writes: > > > On 2016-11-12 11:30:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > >> which is a rather blatant waste of cycles. I would suggest an explicit > > >> do-nothing

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.

2016-11-14 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-11-12 11:42:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2016-11-12 11:30:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> which is a rather blatant waste of cycles. I would suggest an explicit > >> do-nothing installcheck rule rather than the hack you came up with here. >

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.

2016-11-12 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-11-12 11:42:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> Hm. What about inventing an additional macro NO_INSTALLCHECK that >> prevents pgxs.mk from generating an installcheck rule? > That'd work. I'd also be ok with living with the warning. I have to say > I

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.

2016-11-12 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-11-12 11:42:12 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > On 2016-11-12 11:30:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> which is a rather blatant waste of cycles. I would suggest an explicit > >> do-nothing installcheck rule rather than the hack you came up with here. >

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.

2016-11-12 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > On 2016-11-12 11:30:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> which is a rather blatant waste of cycles. I would suggest an explicit >> do-nothing installcheck rule rather than the hack you came up with here. > I had that at first, but that generates a warning

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.

2016-11-12 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-11-12 11:30:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: > > Committed after simplifying the Makefile. > > While I have no particular objection to adding these tests, the > commit log's claim that this will improve buildfarm testing is > quite wrong. The

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.

2016-11-12 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > Committed after simplifying the Makefile. While I have no particular objection to adding these tests, the commit log's claim that this will improve buildfarm testing is quite wrong. The buildfarm runs "make installcheck" not "make check" in contrib.

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.

2016-11-12 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, On 2016-11-08 10:25:11 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > ifdef USE_PGXS > PG_CONFIG = pg_config > PGXS := $(shell $(PG_CONFIG) --pgxs) > @@ -21,3 +25,29 @@ top_builddir = ../.. > include $(top_builddir)/src/Makefile.global > include $(top_srcdir)/contrib/contrib-global.mk > endif > + > +#

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.

2016-11-08 Thread Amit Kapila
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 4:23 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > Hi, > >> I had also thought about it while preparing patch, but I couldn't find >> any clear use case. I think it could be useful during development of >> a module, but not sure if it is worth to add a target. I

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.

2016-11-08 Thread Ashutosh Sharma
Hi, > I had also thought about it while preparing patch, but I couldn't find > any clear use case. I think it could be useful during development of > a module, but not sure if it is worth to add a target. I think there > is no harm in adding such a target, but lets take an opinion from >

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.

2016-11-07 Thread Amit Kapila
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > Hi, > > I have started with the review for this patch and would like to share > some of my initial review comments that requires author's attention. > Thanks. > 1) I am getting some trailing whitespace errors when

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.

2016-11-02 Thread Ashutosh Sharma
Hi, I have started with the review for this patch and would like to share some of my initial review comments that requires author's attention. 1) I am getting some trailing whitespace errors when trying to apply this patch using git apply command. Following are the error messages i am getting.

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.

2016-09-19 Thread Amit Kapila
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2016-08-30 07:57:19 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> I will write such a test case either in this week or early next week. >> >> Great. >> >

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.

2016-09-10 Thread Amit Kapila
On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-08-30 07:57:19 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: >> I will write such a test case either in this week or early next week. > > Great. > Okay, attached patch adds some simple tests for pg_stat_statements. One thing to note

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.

2016-08-29 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-08-30 07:57:19 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > I will write such a test case either in this week or early next week. Great. > I hope this is not super urgent, let me know if you think otherwise. It's not urgent, no. Thanks! Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.

2016-08-29 Thread Amit Kapila
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 2016-02-04 21:43:14 +, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated. >>> >>> The previous

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.

2016-08-29 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Robert Haas wrote: > That would also have the advantage of improving the test coverage for > pg_stat_statements, which is at the moment quite a bit thinner than > the coverage for lwlock.c. Hmm, the coverage-html report is not currently covering contrib ... I suppose that's an easily fixable

[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated.

2016-08-29 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 3:30 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2016-02-04 21:43:14 +, Robert Haas wrote: >> Change the way that LWLocks for extensions are allocated. >> >> The previous RequestAddinLWLocks() method had several disadvantages. >> First, the locks would be