| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Tracking wait event for latches |
| Date: | 2016-08-23 05:47:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSTGdnObStPV6dGzVB3jHXgRm4R=mPC48whKPGDGzWHFg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 9:49 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> The reason why I chose this way is that there are a lot of them. It is
>> painful to maintain the order of the array elements in perfect mapping
>> with the list of IDs...
>
> You can use stupid macro tricks to help with that problem...
Yeah, still after thinking about it I think I would just go with an
array like lock types and be done with it. With a comment to mention
that the order should be respected things would be enough...
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ryan Murphy | 2016-08-23 06:04:19 | Re: Patch: initdb: "'" for QUOTE_PATH (non-windows) |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-08-23 05:46:41 | Re: WAL consistency check facility |