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 <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1mgEku-0006Xv-GZ
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 23:24:20 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1mgEkt-0005lW-FU
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 23:24:19 +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 <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1mgEkt-0005lM-6r
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 23:24:19 +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 <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1mgEkq-0004BK-Qh
	for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 28 Oct 2021 23:24:18 +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 19SNO86e565037;
	Thu, 28 Oct 2021 19:24:08 -0400
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>
cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>,
        "sulamul@gmail.com" <sulamul@gmail.com>,
        "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: inefficient loop in StandbyReleaseLockList()
In-reply-to: <B4C04240-1AAC-4200-9636-BCC7984688D8@amazon.com>
References: <CD2F0E7F-9822-45EC-A411-AE56F14DEA9F@amazon.com>
 <CAAJ_b94_awY-VfbLbzxm4zNni3NXxG3wrSkSgnHyCDqHnT+eJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211028.155751.1898631306946946681.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
 <20211028220748.6ekrl74minwq75f4@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20211028221424.6wtcse3qkbf2cmqo@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <560364.1635459891@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <B4C04240-1AAC-4200-9636-BCC7984688D8@amazon.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>
	message dated "Thu, 28 Oct 2021 23:15:50 -0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <565035.1635463448.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 19:24:08 -0400
Message-ID: <565036.1635463448@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Id: <pgsql-hackers.lists.postgresql.org>
List-Help: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Archive: <https://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-hackers>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/565036.1635463448%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> writes:
> On 10/28/21, 3:25 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Does it matter what order we're releasing the locks in?

> I'm not seeing anything that indicates the ordering matters.  AFAICT
> either approach would work in this case.  IMO changing the order is
> scarier than switching to foreach(), though.

Yeah, that was my feeling...

			regards, tom lane