Re: Latches vs lwlock contention

On 10/09/2024 19:53, Maxim Orlov wrote:
> I looked at the patch set and found it quite useful.
>
> The first 7 patches are just refactoring and may be committed separately
> if needed.
> There were minor problems: patch #5 don't want to apply clearly and the
> #8 is complained
> about partitionLock is unused if we build without asserts. So, I add a
> PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY
> to solve the last issue.
>
> Again, overall patch looks good and seems useful to me. Here is the
> rebased v5 version based on Heikki's patch set above.

Committed, thanks for the review!

In case you're wondering, I committed some of the smaller patches
separately, but also squashed some of them with the main patch, On
closer look, the first patch, "Remove LOCK_PRINT() call that could point
to garbage", wasn't fixing any existing issue. The LOCK_PRINT() was
fine, because we held the partition lock. But it became necessary with
the main patch, so I squashed it with that. And the others that I
squashed were just not that interesting on their own.

The rest of Thomas's SetLatches work remains, so I left the commitfest
entry in "Needs review" state.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)