Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> With only one known request for a user-allocated lock, it's hard to
> >> justify the overhead of a GUC variable.
>
> > True, but are people going to recompile PostgreSQL to use this feature?
> > Seems they would have to.
>
> How you figure that? The proposed default value was 4, which seems
> fine to me, given that the known worldwide demand amounts to 1.
Oh, so you are going to give him a few slots. I thought we were going
to default to 0 and he was going to have to bump it up to use his
software. That sounds fine to me.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073