Re: Proposal: New LWLockmode LW_OWNER - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Proposal: New LWLockmode LW_OWNER
Date
Msg-id 27394.1212776104@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal: New LWLockmode LW_OWNER  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM> writes:
>>> New Lock Mode Proposed: LW_EX_OWNER  (input on better name will be 
>>> appreciated).

> We do something like this in the sinval code -- see SIGetDataEntry.

Yeah, that analogy occurred to me later --- EX_OWNER would be a close
match to what sinval is doing.  However, adding a third mode to LWLocks
would certainly introduce extra cycles into what is already a hotspot,
and one use-case that is already working fine without it doesn't seem
like much of an argument.  (ProcArray isn't a use-case because of the
commit interlock problem, and I didn't see any other proposed uses
that weren't mere hand-waving.)
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: New LWLockmode LW_OWNER
Next
From: Robert Lor
Date:
Subject: Re: New DTrace probes proposal