On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 6:43 PM, andres@anarazel.de <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> Why a new tranche for each of these? And it can't be correct that each
> has the same base?
I complained about the same-base problem before. Apparently, that got ignored.
> I don't really like the tranche model as in the patch right now. I'd
> rather have in a way that we have one tranch for all the individual
> lwlocks, where the tranche points to an array of names alongside the
> tranche's name. And then for the others we just supply the tranche name,
> but leave the name array empty, whereas a name can be generated.
That's an interesting idea.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
