On 04/04/2012 03:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> The idea I had in mind was to compensate for adding list-removal logic
>> by getting rid of the concept of an unused entry. If the removal is
>> conditional then you can't do that and you end up with the complications
>> of both methods. Anyway I've not tried to code it yet.
> I concluded this would probably be a loser performance-wise, because it
> would add a couple of palloc/pfree cycles to the processing of each
> multi-chunk message, whether there was any contention or not. So I
> committed the patch with just some cosmetic cleanups.
>
>
OK, thanks for doing this.
cheers
andrew
