Re: slow startup due to LWLockAssign() spinlock

Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-04-24 15:56:45 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Another idea is to add an LWLockAssignBatch(int) function that assigns a
>> range of locks in one call. That would be very simple, and I think it would
>> be less likely to break things than a new global flag. I would be OK with
>> sneaking that into 9.4 still.

> I don't really see the advantage tbh. Assuming we always can avoid the
> spinlock initially seems simple enough - and I have significant doubts
> that anything but buffer locks will need enough locks that it matters
> for other users.

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.

The other ideas are 9.5 material at this point, since they involve
research --- but I agree with Heikki that LWLockAssignBatch could be
snuck into 9.4 still.
        regards, tom lane