On 2016-08-17 08:31:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2016-08-15 18:15:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Therefore, I plan to commit this patch, removing the #include > >> > <stddef.h> unless someone convinces me we need it, shortly after > >> > development for v10 opens, unless there are objections before then. > >> > >> Hearing no objections, done. > > > > I'd have objected, if I hadn't been on vacation. While I intuitively > > *do* think that the increased wait-list overhead won't be relevant, I > > also know that my intuition has frequently been wrong around the lwlock > > code. This needs some benchmarks on a 4+ socket machine, > > first. Something exercising the slow path obviously. E.g. a pgbench with > > a small number of writers, and a large number of writers. > > Amit just pointed out to me that you wrote "a small number of writers, > and a large number of writers". I assume one of those is supposed to > say "readers"? Probably the second one?
Yes. I want a long wait list, modified in bulk - which should be the case with the above. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
