On 2024/10/24 11:12, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
So, probably
we can consider that this check is already in place. If it’s still worth adding,
perhaps placing it inside the FAST_PATH_SLOT() macro could be an option...
Or current assertion check is enough? Thought?
Given that it's already done in
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 01:19:37AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
> I understand that PGPROC entries with pid=0 are typically those not yet
> allocated to
> any backends. Yes, as you mentioned, prepared transactions also have pid=0.
> However,
> GetLockStatusData() loops up to ProcGlobal->allP
On 2024/10/21 16:32, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
A few random comments on it:
Thanks for the review!
1 ===
+ /* Skip backends with pid=0, as they don't hold fast-path locks
*/
+ if (proc->pid == 0)
+ continue;
What about adding a few words i
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 09:19:49AM +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While reading the fast-path lock code, I noticed that GetLockStatusData()
> checks all slots for every backend to gather fast-path lock data. However,
> backends with PID=0 don't hold fast-path locks, right?
I think the s
Hi,
While reading the fast-path lock code, I noticed that GetLockStatusData()
checks all slots for every backend to gather fast-path lock data. However,
backends with PID=0 don't hold fast-path locks, right? If so, we can
improve efficiency by having GetLockStatusData() skip those backends early.
