On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think we ought to move the buffer mapping, lock manager, and >> predicate lock manager locks into their own tranches also, perhaps >> using this new named-tranche facility. > > Makes sense and attached patch implements it using new named > tranches facility. One thing to note is that to make it work on > EXEC_BACKEND builds, I have passed the individual LWLock > array via save-restore backendparams mechanism. Now instead > we could have initialised the LWLock arrays in each backend at > start-up and I have tried to analyse that way as well, but we need > to use NamedLWLockTrancheArray instead of > NamedLWLockTrancheRequestArray in GetNamedLWLockTranche() > and not only that, we also need to store number of locks > information in NamedLWLockTrancheArray as well. So it seems > it is better to use save-restore backendparams mechanism for > passing LWLock arrays.
I'm not very keen on the way this puts RequestNamedTranches() into miscinit.c. That doesn't really seem like it goes there, and I feel like each subsystem should be responsible for requesting its own named tranche rather than having it be centralized like this. I think it might be helpful to split this into two patches. The first would remove LWLockAssign() and NumLWLocks() and related bits, and would use NUM_FIXED_LWLOCKS any place we currently call NumLWLocks(). The second would add the named tranches for the three kinds of locks included in NUM_FIXED_LWLOCKS and then replace NUM_FIXED_LWLOCKS with NUM_INDIVIDUAL_LWLOCKS. -- 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
