On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2015-09-08 13:29:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> I like this approach, though I think clearly it needs more performance >> testing. > > Yea, obviously. I did run this on a slightly bigger machine yesterday > and it gave consistent ~8% performance improvements.
Wow, nice. >> The method of determining the tranche IDs is totally awful, though. I >> assume that's just a dirty hack for the POC and not something you'd >> seriously consider doing. > > If you're referring to assigning fixed ids in the guts of lwlocks.c - > yea, that was really more of a quick hack. I think we should put a enum > into lwlock.h with fixed tranch ids with the final member being > LWTRANCHE_FIRST_DYNAMIC or so. We could do that, but I'm not sure just calling LWLockNewTrancheId() for all of the tranches would be so bad either. -- 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
