On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Fixed. > > This patch doesn't build: > > ./xfunc.sgml: int lwlock_count = 0; > Tabs appear in SGML/XML files >
Changed the documentation and now I am not getting build failure.
> The #define NUM_LWLOCKS 1 just seems totally unnecessary, as does int
> lwlock_count = 0. You're only assigning one lock! I'd just do
> RequestAddinLWLockTranche("pg_stat_statements locks", 1); pgss->lock =
> GetLWLockAddinTranche("pg_stat_statements locks")->lock; and call it
> good.
>
Changed as per suggestion.
> I think we shouldn't foreclose the idea of core users of this facility
> by using names like NumLWLocksByLoadableModules(). Why can't an
> in-core client use this API? I think instead of calling these "addin
> tranches" we should call them "named tranches"; thus public APIs
> RequestNamedLWLockTranche()
> and GetNamedLWLockTranche(), and private variables
> NamedLWLockTrancheRequests, NamedLWLockTrancheRequestsAllocated, etc.
> In fact,
>
Changed as per suggestion.
> I do not see an obvious reason why the two looks in CreateLWLocks()
> that end with "} while (++i < LWLockTrancheRequestsCount);" could not
> be merged, and I believe that would be cleaner than what you've got
> now. Similarly, the two loops in GetLWLockAddinTranche() could also
> be merged. Just keep a running total and return it when you find a
> match.
>
> I think it would be a good idea to merge LWLockAddInTrancheShmemSize
> into LWLockShmemSize. I don't see why that function can't compute a
> grand total and return it.
>
Agreed with both the points and changed as per suggestion.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
separate_tranche_extensions_v4.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
