On 2015-09-08 13:29:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I like this approach, though I think clearly it needs more performance testing.
Yea, obviously. I did run this on a slightly bigger machine yesterday
and it gave consistent ~8% performance improvements.
> The method of determining the tranche IDs is totally awful, though. I
> assume that's just a dirty hack for the POC and not something you'd
> seriously consider doing.
If you're referring to assigning fixed ids in the guts of lwlocks.c -
yea, that was really more of a quick hack. I think we should put a enum
into lwlock.h with fixed tranch ids with the final member being
LWTRANCHE_FIRST_DYNAMIC or so.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
