On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:18 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2015-07-29 12:54:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I would try to avoid changing lwlock.c. It's pretty easy when so
>> doing to create mechanisms that work now but make further upgrades to
>> the general lwlock mechanism difficult. I'd like to avoid that.
>
> I'm massively doubtful that re-implementing parts of lwlock.c is the
> better outcome. Then you have two different infrastructures you need to
> improve over time.
That is also true, but I don't think we're going to be duplicating
anything from lwlock.c in this case.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
