On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 13:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, I think you're right here. It's probably not much of a practical
> > concern.
> >
> > I was slightly bothered because it seemed a little unpredictable. But it
> > seems very minor, and if we wanted to fix it later I think we could.
>
> Yes, I agree. I think there are a number of things we could possibly
> fine-tune, but it's not clear to me just yet which ones are really problems
> or what the right solutions are. I think once the basic patch is in and
> people start beating on it we'll get a better feeling for which parts can
> benefit from further engineering.
OK, marking "ready for committer" assuming that you will take care of my
previous complaints (the biggest one is that holdsStrongLockCount should
be boolean).
Disclaimer: I have done no performance review at all, even though this
is a performance patch!
I like the patch and I like the approach. It seems like the potential
benefits are worth the extra complexity, which seems manageable and
mostly isolated to lock.c.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
