On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Alexander Korotkov < > a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Alexander Korotkov > >> > <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > >> > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Alvaro Herrera < > alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> > >> > > wrote: > >> > >> So far as I can tell, there are three patches in flight here: > >> > >> > >> > >> * replication slot IO lwlocks > >> > >> * ability of extensions to request tranches dynamically > >> > >> * PGPROC > >> > >> > >> > >> The first one hasn't been reviewed at all, but the other two have > seen a > >> > >> bit of discussion and evolution. Is anyone doing any more > reviewing? > >> > > > >> > > I'd like to add another one: fixed tranche id for each SLRU. > >> > > >> > +1 for this. The patch looks good and I will commit it if nobody > objects. > >> > > >> > >> +1. Patch looks good to me as well, but I have one related question: > >> Is there a reason why we should not assign ReplicationOrigins a > >> fixed tranche id and then we might want to even get away with > >> LWLockRegisterTranche()? > > > > > > +1. I think we should do this. > > > > Okay, Attached patch assigns fixed trancheid for ReplicationOrigins. > I don't think we can remove LWLockRegisterTranche(), as that will be > required for assigning transcheid's for extensions, so didn't change that > part of code. > OK. This one looks good for me too. ------ Alexander Korotkov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
