Alexander Korotkov wrote: > Attached patch is rebased and have better comments. > Also, there is one comment which survive since original version by Andres. > > /* Add exponential backoff? Should seldomly be contended tho. */ > > > Andres, did you mean we should twice the delay with each unsuccessful try > to lock?
This is probably a tough patch to review; trying to break it with low number of shared buffers and high concurrency might be an interesting exercise. I know Andres is already pretty busy with the checkpoint flush patch and I very much doubt he will be able to give this patch a lot of attention in the short term. Moving to next CF. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
