Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Attached patch is rebased and have better comments.
> Also, there is one comment which survive since original version by Andres.
>
> /* Add exponential backoff? Should seldomly be contended tho. */
>
>
> Andres, did you mean we should twice the delay with each unsuccessful try
> to lock?
This is probably a tough patch to review; trying to break it with low
number of shared buffers and high concurrency might be an interesting
exercise.
I know Andres is already pretty busy with the checkpoint flush patch and
I very much doubt he will be able to give this patch a lot of attention
in the short term. Moving to next CF.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
