On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 03:32:54PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > The piece about a single shared lwlocks is/was about protecting the set > of entries that are currently in-memory - which can't easily be > implemented just using atomics (at least without the risk of increasing > the counters of an entry since replaced with another query).
This discussion has stalled, and the patch proposed is incorrect, so I have marked it as RwF in the CF app. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
