Re: LWLocks in DSM memory

On 2016-08-15 18:15:23 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)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.

Regards,

Andres