Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks, v4

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 13:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Yeah, I think you're right here. It's probably not much of a practical
>> > concern.
>> >
>> > I was slightly bothered because it seemed a little unpredictable. But it
>> > seems very minor, and if we wanted to fix it later I think we could.
>>
>> Yes, I agree. I think there are a number of things we could possibly fine-tune, but it's not clear to me just yet which ones are really problems or what the right solutions are.  I think once the basic patch is in and people start beating on it we'll get a better feeling for which parts can benefit from further engineering.
>
> OK, marking "ready for committer" assuming that you will take care of my
> previous complaints (the biggest one is that holdsStrongLockCount should
> be boolean).
>
> Disclaimer: I have done no performance review at all, even though this
> is a performance patch!
>
> I like the patch and I like the approach. It seems like the potential
> benefits are worth the extra complexity, which seems manageable and
> mostly isolated to lock.c.

Thanks. Committed, with minor changes based on your comments.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company