Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1aJlPl-0007A9-0c for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:10:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aJlPk-00068m-DX for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:10:24 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aJlPj-00068g-T1 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:10:24 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aJlPh-0007oh-IZ for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 17:10:22 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u0EHAFLU005944; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:10:15 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Andres Freund , =?UTF-8?B?0JLQsNGB0LjQu9GM0LXQsiDQlNC80LjRgtGA0LjQuQ==?= , "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794 In-reply-to: References: <19322.1451067023@sss.pgh.pa.us> <19834.1451068135@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20151225211326.z4umuafvv27nczya@alap3.anarazel.de> <24833.1451078993@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20151226112248.uv3qxmroe4va7wke@alap3.anarazel.de> <20160114143931.GG10941@awork2.anarazel.de> <20160114155617.GI10941@awork2.anarazel.de> <20160114170604.GJ10941@awork2.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:07:23 -0500" Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:10:15 -0500 Message-ID: <5943.1452791415@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> Do we want to provide a backward compatible API for all this? I'm fine >> either way. > How would that work? I see no great need to be backwards-compatible on this, especially if it would complicate matters at all. I doubt there's a lot of third-party code using WaitLatch right now. Just make sure there's an obvious compile failure for anyone who is. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers