On 2014-04-24 12:43:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 2014-04-24 11:02:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> FWIW, I like the LWLockAssignBatch idea a lot better than the currently
> >> proposed patch. LWLockAssign is a low-level function that has no business
> >> making risky assumptions about the context it's invoked in.
>
> > I don't think LWLockAssignBatch() is that easy without introducing
> > layering violations. It can't just return a pointer out of the main
> > lwlock array that then can be ++ed clientside because MainLWLockArray's
> > stride isn't sizeof(LWLock).
>
> Meh. I knew this business of using pointers instead of indexes would
> have some downsides.
>
> We could return the array stride ... kinda ugly, but since there's
> probably only one consumer for this API, it's not *that* bad. Could
> wrap the stride-increment in a macro, perhaps.
I think I am just going to wait for 9.5 where I sure hope we can
allocate the buffer lwlocks outside the main array...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services