Re: Announcing Veil

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(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 03:54:52
Message-ID: 28957.1128657292@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-10-07 03:56:20 Re: Announcing Veil
Previous Message David Fetter 2005-10-07 03:54:13 Re: [HACKERS] Patching dblink.c to avoid warning about open transaction