From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Do we need so many hint bits? |
Date: | 2012-11-18 17:13:19 |
Message-ID: | 1353258799.10198.84.camel@jdavis-laptop |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2012-11-18 at 15:19 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Sunday, November 18, 2012 03:07:01 AM Jeff Davis wrote:
> > Process A (process that clears a VM bit for a data page):
> > 1. Acquires exclusive lock on data buffer
> > 2. Acquires exclusive lock on VM buffer
> > 3. clears VM bit
> > 4. Releases VM buffer lock
> > 5. Releases data buffer lock
>
> Well, but right this is a rather big difference. If vm pages get
> unconditionally locked all the time we will have a huge source of new
> contention as they are shared between so many heap pages.
No, that is only for the process *clearing* the bit, and this already
happens. I am not planning on introducing any new locks, aside from the
buffer header lock when acquiring a pin. And I plan to keep those pins
for long enough that those don't matter, either.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2012-11-18 19:24:25 | Re: [PATCH] Make pg_basebackup configure and start standby [Review] |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2012-11-18 16:20:20 | Re: [PATCH] Make pg_basebackup configure and start standby [Review] |