On 2017-10-02 17:30:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > Yes, that'd be a bad idea. It's not great to have memcpys in a critical
> > section, but it's way better than pallocs. So we need to use some local
> > buffers that this get copied to.
>
> Or replace the spinlock with an LWLock?
That'd probably be a good idea, but I'm loathe to do so in the back
branches. Not at this callsite, but some others, there's some potential
for contention.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
