Re: Latches vs lwlock contention - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Latches vs lwlock contention
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKG+q6UGK9S4RcJHHo9o24zsvhRd9g2faF1x4vCn3zdHQqQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Latches vs lwlock contention  (vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Latches vs lwlock contention
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jan 28, 2023 at 3:39 AM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2022 at 16:40, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here's an attempt at that.  There aren't actually any cases of uses of
> > this stuff in critical sections here, so perhaps I shouldn't bother
> > with that part.  The part I'd most like some feedback on is the
> > heavyweight lock bits.  I'll add this to the commitfest.
>
> The patch does not apply on top of HEAD as in [1], please post a rebased patch:

Rebased.  I dropped the CV patch for now.

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Date-time extraneous fields with reserved keywords
Next
From: Joseph Koshakow
Date:
Subject: Re: Date-time extraneous fields with reserved keywords