Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobEhY7AOstZMXhkLE+gCpU7opWfzNddQ1tZUVG0fxVw9A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches  (Ildus Kurbangaliev <i.kurbangaliev@postgrespro.ru>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 5:16 AM, Ildus Kurbangaliev
>> <i.kurbangaliev@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> > Yes, probably.
>> > I'm going to change API calls as you suggested earlier.
>> > How you do think the tranches registration after initialization should
>> > look like?
>>
>> I don't see any need to change anything there.  The idea there is that
>> an extension allocates a tranche ID and are responsible for making
>> sure that every backend that uses that tranche finds out about the ID
>> that was chosen and registers a matching tranche definition.  How to
>> do that is the extension's problem.  Maybe eventually we'll provide
>> some tools to make that easier, but that's separate from the work
>> we're trying to do here.
>
> FWIW I had assumed, when you created the tranche stuff, that SLRU users
> would all allocate their lwlocks from a tranche provided by slru.c
> itself, and the locks would be stored in the slru Ctl struct.  Does that
> not work for some reason?

I think that should work and that it's a good idea.  I think it's just
a case of nobody having done the work.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: unclear about row-level security USING vs. CHECK
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: unclear about row-level security USING vs. CHECK