From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: New lock types |
Date: | 2002-10-06 20:48:46 |
Message-ID: | 12139.1033937326@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com> writes:
> I think creating a new LWLockId (BTFreeListLock?) can help here. The
> operations on freelist are short lived and rather infrequent so it
> doesn't seem to matter that it is global to all indexes.
Seems like a really bad idea to me ... what makes you think that this
would not be a bottleneck? You'd have to take such a lock during every
index-page split, which is not that uncommon.
> Another way
> would be to create one LockId per index, but it seems a waste to me.
No, you should be looking at a way to represent index locking in the
standard lock manager, not as an LWLock. We've already got a concept
of page-level lockable entities there.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2002-10-06 21:58:04 | Naming convention |
Previous Message | Greg Copeland | 2002-10-06 20:21:05 | Re: Proposed LogWriter Scheme, WAS: Potential Large |