On 2/1/18 19:21, Simon Riggs wrote: > If we really can't persuade you of that, it doesn't sink the patch. We > can have the WAL pointer itself - it wouldn't save space but it would > at least alleviate the spinlock.
Do you want to send in an alternative patch that preserves the WAL pointer and only changes the locking? -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
