On 02/10/2014 06:41 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-02-10 11:20:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> You didn't really explain why you think that ordering is necessary?
>>
>> Actually, after grepping to check my memory of what those fields are
>> being used for, I have a bigger question: WTF is xlog.c doing being
>> so friendly with the innards of LWLocks? Surely this needs to get
>> refactored so that most of WakeupWaiters() and friends is in lwlock.c.
>> Or has all notion of modularity gone out the window while I wasn't
>> looking?
>
> Well, it's not actually using any lwlock.c code, it's a special case
> locking logic, just reusing the datastructures. That said, I am not
> particularly happy about the amount of code it's duplicating from
> lwlock.c. Pretty much all of WALInsertSlotReleaseOne and most of
> WALInsertSlotAcquireOne() is a copied.
I'm not too happy with the amount of copy-paste myself, but there was
enough difference to regular lwlocks that I didn't want to bother all
lwlocks with the xlog-specific stuff either. The WAL insert slots do
share the LWLock-related PGPROC fields though, and semaphore. I'm all
ears if you have ideas on that..
- Heikki
