Hi Stuart, if it has the same semantics as the existing one but is more efficient I think it's ok to patch it. If it has different behaviour we'll probably want it to be a new one, with a new name, configuration options and documentation.
If I'm not wrong this is still managing a pool in memory and handing out sequences - within that range - with possible gaps and not guaranteeing monotonicity between different threads, so IMO this one doesn't need a new name as from the user point of view it seems irrelevant to know the different details. I'd sugest you to send a pull request? A PR gives us means to discuss details. Feel free to occasionally send PRs even for things you don't think are fully ready to be merged, just make sure you point it out clearly in the description. Thanks, Sanne On 11 December 2015 at 04:31, Stuart Douglas <sdoug...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I have been working on a change to the pooled optimizer that we have been > seeing good performance results with. Basically it hands out blocks of ID's > to a thread local, rather than having every thread contend on the lock every > time an ID is required. > > https://github.com/hibernate/hibernate-orm/compare/master...stuartwdouglas:pooled-optimiser-hack > > What would I need to do to get a change like this in? In particular: > > - Does it need to be a new type of optimizer, or is modifying the existing > one like I have done OK? > - How should it be configured? > > I am happy to do up a PR for this, but I am just not really sure what would > be required to get it to a point where it would be acceptable for inclusion. > > Stuart > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
