From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: LWLockAcquire and LockBuffer mode argument |
Date: | 2020-08-25 18:17:12 |
Message-ID: | 20200825181712.ltg5gbghyqjagzw5@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2020-08-25 13:59:35 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:35 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > Thoughts?
>
> This is likely to cause a certain amount of annoyance to many
> PostgreSQL developers, but if you have evidence that it will improve
> performance significantly, I think it's very reasonable to do it
> anyway.
I don't think it'll be a "significant" performance benefit directly. It
appears to be measurable, but I think to reach significant performance
improvements it'll take a while and it'll come from profilers and other
tools working better.
> However, if we do it all in a backward-compatible way as you propose,
> then we're likely to keep reintroducing code that does it the old way
> for a really long time. I'm not sure that actually makes a lot of
> sense. It might be better to just bite the bullet and make a hard
> break.
It seems easy enough to slap a compiler "enforced" deprecation warning
on the new compat version, in master only. Seems unnecessary to make
life immediately harder for extensions authors desiring cross-version
compatibility.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-08-25 18:21:23 | Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..." |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-08-25 18:07:54 | Re: Out-of-bounds access (ARRAY_VS_SINGLETON) (src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtdedup.c) |