Simon Riggs wrote: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> [ 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*. >> Yeah, I too considered just ripping it out. Simon is worried that >> locking all the lock partitions and scanning the locks table can take a >> long time. We do that in the master, while holding both ProcArrayLock >> and XidGenLock in exclusive mode (hmm, why is shared not enough?), so >> there is some grounds for worry. OTOH, it's only done once per checkpoint. > > I could live with ripping it out, but what we have now doesn't make > sense, to me.
Ok, let's just rip it out for now. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
