Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)sun(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
Date: 2009-03-13 17:16:44
Message-ID: 12292.1236964604@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I think that changing the locking behavior is attacking the problem at
> the wrong level anyway.

Right.  By the time a patch here could have any effect, you've already
lost the game --- having to deschedule and reschedule a process is a
large cost compared to the typical lock hold time for most LWLocks.  So
it would be better to look at how to avoid blocking in the first place.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Jignesh K. ShahDate: 2009-03-13 17:21:15
Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
Previous:From: Greg SmithDate: 2009-03-13 17:15:32
Subject: Re: 8.4 Performance improvements: was Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group