| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Marc Munro <marc(at)bloodnok(dot)com>, veil-general(at)pgfoundry(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Announcing Veil |
| Date: | 2005-10-07 03:56:20 |
| Message-ID: | 200510070356.j973uKN12189@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'd be willing to add the proposed patch in 8.1 (style note:
> >> NUM_USER_DEFINED_LWLOCKS should be set in pg_config_manual.h not
> >> lwlock.h).
>
> > Shouldn't it be something we can put in postgresql.conf?
>
> No more than any of the other entries in pg_config_manual.h.
> With only one known request for a user-allocated lock, it's hard to
> justify the overhead of a GUC variable.
True, but are people going to recompile PostgreSQL to use this feature?
Seems they would have to.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-07 04:00:38 | Re: Announcing Veil |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-07 03:54:52 | Re: Announcing Veil |