On 2015-07-29 12:54:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > I would try to avoid changing lwlock.c. It's pretty easy when so > doing to create mechanisms that work now but make further upgrades to > the general lwlock mechanism difficult. I'd like to avoid that.
I'm massively doubtful that re-implementing parts of lwlock.c is the better outcome. Then you have two different infrastructures you need to improve over time. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
