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: Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org>
Cc: Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
Date: 2009-03-20 15:55:45
Message-ID: 14217.1237564545@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> writes:
> As for ProcArrayLock, it sounds like it is very much a special case.

Quite.  Read the section "Interlocking Transaction Begin, Transaction
End, and Snapshots" in src/backend/access/transam/README before
proposing any changes in this area --- it's a lot more delicate than
one might think.  We'd have partitioned the ProcArray long ago if
it wouldn't have broken the transaction system.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: JeffDate: 2009-03-20 17:01:42
Subject: Re: current transaction in productive database
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2009-03-20 15:46:01
Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4

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