Re: Hot Standby on git - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Hot Standby on git
Date
Msg-id 6950.1254752345@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Hot Standby on git  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Hot Standby on git
List pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> I don't see how that helps at all. The objective of lock counters was to
> know if we can skip acquiring an LWlock on all lock partitions. This
> change keeps the lock counters yet acquires the locks we were trying to
> avoid. This change needs some justification since it is not a bug fix.

[ scratches head ... ]  Why is hot standby messing with this sort of
thing at all?  It sounds like a performance optimization that should
be considered separately, and *later*.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Privileges and inheritance
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Privileges and inheritance