Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Yes, I know. And we all had a long conversation about how to do it without
> waking up the other procs.
>
> Forming a list, like we use for sync rep and having just a single process
> walk the queue was the way I suggested then and previously.
>
> Weird.

I am not sure what your point is. Are you complaining that you didn't
get a design credit for this patch? If so, I think that's a bit
petty. I agree that you mentioned something along these lines at
PGCon, but Amit and I have been discussing this every week for over a
month, so it's not as if the conversations at PGCon were the only
ones, or the first. Nor is there a conspiracy to deprive Simon Riggs
of credit for his ideas. I believe that you should assume good faith
and take it for granted that Amit credited who he believed that he got
his ideas from. The fact that you may have had similar ideas does not
mean that he got his from you. It probably does mean that they are
good ideas, since we are apparently all thinking in the same way.

(I could provide EDB email internal emails documenting the timeline of
various ideas and showing which ones happened before and after PGCon,
and we could debate exactly who thought of what when. But I don't
really see the point. I certainly hope that a debate over who
deserves how much credit for what isn't going to overshadow the good
work Amit has done on this patch.)

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company