On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 13:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: >> > Yeah, I think you're right here. It's probably not much of a practical >> > concern. >> > >> > I was slightly bothered because it seemed a little unpredictable. But it >> > seems very minor, and if we wanted to fix it later I think we could. >> >> Yes, I agree. I think there are a number of things we could possibly >> fine-tune, but it's not clear to me just yet which ones are really problems >> or what the right solutions are. I think once the basic patch is in and >> people start beating on it we'll get a better feeling for which parts can >> benefit from further engineering. > > OK, marking "ready for committer" assuming that you will take care of my > previous complaints (the biggest one is that holdsStrongLockCount should > be boolean). > > Disclaimer: I have done no performance review at all, even though this > is a performance patch! > > I like the patch and I like the approach. It seems like the potential > benefits are worth the extra complexity, which seems manageable and > mostly isolated to lock.c.
Thanks. Committed, with minor changes based on your comments. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
