RE: Speed up transaction completion faster after many relations are accessed in a transaction

From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Hm. Putting a list header for a purely-local data structure into shared
> memory seems quite ugly. Isn't there a better place to keep that?

Agreed. I put it in the global variable.

> Do we really want a dlist here at all? I'm concerned that bloating
> LOCALLOCK will cost us when there are many locks involved. This patch
> increases the size of LOCALLOCK by 25% if I counted right, which does
> not seem like a negligible penalty.

To delete the LOCALLOCK in RemoveLocalLock(), we need a dlist. slist requires the list iterator to be passed from callers.

From: Andres Freund [mailto:andres(at)anarazel(dot)de]
> Sure, we should do that. I don't buy the "illogical" bit, just moving
> hashcode up to after tag isn't more or less logical, and saves most of
> the padding, and moving the booleans to the end isn't better/worse
> either.
>
> I don't find

Thanks, I've done it.

From: Simon Riggs [mailto:simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com]
> Can we use our knowledge of the structure of locks, i.e. partition locks
> are all children of the partitioned table, to do a better job?

I couldn't come up with a idea.

Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa