Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 5/10/17 12:24, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Upthread I theorized whether
>> that's actually still meaningful given fastpath locking and such, but I
>> guess we'll have to evaluate that.
> [ with or without contention, fast-path locking beats the extra dance that
> open_share_lock() does. ]
That is pretty cool. It would be good to verify the same on master,
but assuming it holds up, I think it's ok to remove open_share_lock().
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
