Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Ildus Kurbangaliev
Тема Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches
Дата
Msg-id 3E1BA966-79DF-4FE3-88C2-06BC5D67869C@postgrespro.ru
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches  ("andres@anarazel.de" <andres@anarazel.de>)
Ответы Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches  ("andres@anarazel.de" <andres@anarazel.de>)
Список pgsql-hackers

On Sep 6, 2015, at 2:36 PM, andres@anarazel.de wrote:

On 2015-09-05 12:48:12 +0300, Ildus Kurbangaliev wrote:
Another parts require a some discussion so I didn't touch them yet.

At this point I don't see any point in further review until these are
addressed.

The idea to create an individual tranches for individual LWLocks have
come from Heikki Linnakangas and I also think that tranche is a good place to keep
LWLock name.

I think it's rather ugly.

Base of these tranches points to MainLWLockArray

And that's just plain wrong. The base of a tranche ought to point to the
first lwlock in it.

Ok, I've kept only one tranche for individual LWLocks

On Sep 2, 2015, at 1:43 AM, andres@anarazel.de wrote:

I don't really like the tranche model as in the patch right now. I'd
rather have in a way that we have one tranch for all the individual
lwlocks, where the tranche points to an array of names alongside the
tranche's name. And then for the others we just supply the tranche name,
but leave the name array empty, whereas a name can be generated.

Maybe I don't understand something here, but why add extra field to all tranches
if we need only one array (especially the array for individual LWLocks).

----
Ildus Kurbangaliev
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Joe Conway
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions
Следующее
От: "andres@anarazel.de"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches