Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mhvpV-0003jG-KZ for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2021 15:36:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mhvpU-0003Xv-HB for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2021 15:36:04 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mhvpU-0003Wu-8X for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2021 15:36:04 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mhvpS-0007hA-45 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2021 15:36:03 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 1A2FZtN71512318; Tue, 2 Nov 2021 11:35:55 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: bossartn@amazon.com cc: Kyotaro Horiguchi , michael@paquier.xyz, andres@anarazel.de, sulamul@gmail.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: inefficient loop in StandbyReleaseLockList() In-reply-to: <1376384.1635862908@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <1138901.1635782315@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1311319.1635804078@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20211102.114313.713245704579079227.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> <1376384.1635862908@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane message dated "Tue, 02 Nov 2021 10:21:48 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1512316.1635867355.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2021 11:35:55 -0400 Message-ID: <1512317.1635867355@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk I've pushed the SyncPostCheckpoint change, and I think I'm going to stop here. It's not clear that the remaining list_delete_first callers have any real problem; and changing them would be complex. We can revisit the question if we find out there is an issue. Or, if somebody else wants to pursue the issue, feel free. regards, tom lane