Re: reducing the overhead of frequent table locks, v4

On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 13:32 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2011, at 12:02 PM, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, I think you're right here. It's probably not much of a practical
> > concern.
> > 
> > I was slightly bothered because it seemed a little unpredictable. But it
> > seems very minor, and if we wanted to fix it later I think we could.
> 
> Yes, I agree. I think there are a number of things we could possibly fine-tune, but it's not clear to me just yet
whichones are really problems or what the right solutions are.  I think once the basic patch is in and people start
beatingon it we'll get a better feeling for which parts can benefit from further engineering.
 

OK, marking "ready for committer" assuming that you will take care of my
previous complaints (the biggest one is that holdsStrongLockCount should
be boolean).

Disclaimer: I have done no performance review at all, even though this
is a performance patch!

I like the patch and I like the approach. It seems like the potential
benefits are worth the extra complexity, which seems manageable and
mostly isolated to lock.c.

Regards,Jeff Davis