Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> Oh. I confused my approaches. I was thinking about going for 2):
>> 2) Replace the lwlock spinlock by a bit in LWLock->state. That'd avoid
>> embedding the spinlock, and actually might allow to avoid one atomic
>> op in a number of cases.
> precisely because of that concern.
Oh, okay, ignore my comment just now in the other thread.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
