| From: | Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Get rid of WALBufMappingLock |
| Date: | 2025-02-17 09:20:09 |
| Message-ID: | CALT9ZEH11gZJdrN=FnEVLtL7RjjAzN8HzL38mC477MbX32HiXg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, Victor!
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 12:47, Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hey.
>
> I find “Get rid of WALBufMappingLock" commit message misleading, 'cos Lock it's being replaced by CV, actually.
>
> Should the subject be changed to “Replace WALBufMappingLock with ConditionVariable” instead?
The patch replaces WALBufMappingLock with a lockless algorithm based
on atomic variables and CV. Mentioning only CV in the head is only a
part of implementation. Also, the header should better reflect what is
done on the whole, than the implementation details. So I'd rather see
a header like "Replace WALBufMappingLock by lockless algorithm" or
"Initialize WAL buffers concurrently without using WALBufMappingLock"
or something like that.
Kind regards,
Pavel Borisov
Supabase
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Borisov | 2025-02-17 09:24:06 | Re: Get rid of WALBufMappingLock |
| Previous Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2025-02-17 09:17:44 | New commitfest app release on March 4th |