On 2016-08-17 08:31:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2016-08-15 18:15:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Therefore, I plan to commit this patch, removing the #include
> >> > <stddef.h> unless someone convinces me we need it, shortly after
> >> > development for v10 opens, unless there are objections before then.
> >>
> >> Hearing no objections, done.
> >
> > I'd have objected, if I hadn't been on vacation. While I intuitively
> > *do* think that the increased wait-list overhead won't be relevant, I
> > also know that my intuition has frequently been wrong around the lwlock
> > code. This needs some benchmarks on a 4+ socket machine,
> > first. Something exercising the slow path obviously. E.g. a pgbench with
> > a small number of writers, and a large number of writers.
>
> Amit just pointed out to me that you wrote "a small number of writers,
> and a large number of writers". I assume one of those is supposed to
> say "readers"? Probably the second one?
Yes. I want a long wait list, modified in bulk - which should be the
case with the above.
