| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |
| Date: | 2016-04-17 17:04:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20160417170437.pkvekmv6igdgruas@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
> Second, I don't think it will improve and become performant without
> exposure to a wider audience.
Huh? The issue is a relatively simple to spot architectural issue
(taking a single exclusive lock during snapshot acquiration which only
needs shared locks otherwise) - I don't see how any input it's needed.
And for that matter, I don't see why such a lock got through review.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-04-17 17:07:36 | Re: pgsql: Allow Pin/UnpinBuffer to operate in a lockfree manner. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-17 16:01:48 | Re: pgsql: Allow Pin/UnpinBuffer to operate in a lockfree manner. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-04-17 17:07:36 | Re: pgsql: Allow Pin/UnpinBuffer to operate in a lockfree manner. |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-04-17 16:35:59 | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |