Re: LWLockAcquire and LockBuffer mode argument - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: LWLockAcquire and LockBuffer mode argument
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmob=nfo+4UKafKLSWNy3a7bkBRmEcvWDKcGSf7HH7T3oGQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to LWLockAcquire and LockBuffer mode argument  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: LWLockAcquire and LockBuffer mode argument
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:35 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> Thoughts?

This is likely to cause a certain amount of annoyance to many
PostgreSQL developers, but if you have evidence that it will improve
performance significantly, I think it's very reasonable to do it
anyway. However, if we do it all in a backward-compatible way as you
propose, then we're likely to keep reintroducing code that does it the
old way for a really long time. I'm not sure that actually makes a lot
of sense. It might be better to just bite the bullet and make a hard
break.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andreas Karlsson
Date:
Subject: Re: some unused parameters cleanup
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Out-of-bounds access (ARRAY_VS_SINGLETON) (src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtdedup.c)