| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention |
| Date: | 2015-06-30 06:19:57 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZRdS2-ZL=_KyAS60uB3_8Lsf0vNVMZH-CSsjNFWChXwJg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> What I find weird is that the discussion was so intense about
> LWLockAcquireOrWait that when someone presented a solution there were people
> that didn't notice. It makes me wonder whether large group discussions are
> worth it.
I didn't think of this myself, but it feels like something I could
have thought of easily.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2015-06-30 06:23:58 | Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2015-06-30 06:14:43 | Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention |