From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ildus Kurbangaliev <i(dot)kurbangaliev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "andres(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches |
Date: | 2015-12-30 07:51:21 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobc8Kos7cg99FZZJFwyF5rHOYDbyeemPEMo0Mw9f4TnVw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 3:17 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 2.
> @@ -213,6 +213,7 @@ typedef enum BuiltinTrancheIds
> LWTRANCHE_WAL_INSERT,
> LWTRANCHE_BUFFER_CONTENT,
> LWTRANCHE_BUFFER_IO_IN_PROGRESS,
> + LWTRANCHE_PROC,
> LWTRANCHE_FIRST_USER_DEFINED
> } BuiltinTrancheIds;
>
> Other trancheids are based on the name of their corresponding
> LWLock, don't you think it is better to name it as
> LWTRANCHE_BACKEND for the sake of consistency? Also consider
> changing name at other places in patch for this tranche.
Hmm, don't think I agree with this. I think LWTRANCHE_PROC is better.
Remember, backendLock is intended to distinguish that object from
everything else in the PGPROC; but here we're trying to distinguish
stuff in the PGPROC from stuff in other data structures altogether.
That's an important distinction.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Benedikt Grundmann | 2015-12-30 08:12:04 | Re: More thorough planning for OLAP queries (was: [PATCH] Equivalence Class Filters) |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2015-12-30 07:16:28 | More thorough planning for OLAP queries (was: [PATCH] Equivalence Class Filters) |