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

Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Date: 2002-01-05 00:32:37
Message-ID: 200201050032.g050Wbm18345@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-odbc
> This still leaves me undecided whether to apply the first or second
> version of the LWLock patch.

I vote for the second.  Logically it makes more sense, and my guess is
that the first patch wins only if there are enough CPU's available to
run all the newly-awoken processes.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tatsuo IshiiDate: 2002-01-05 01:25:32
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous:From: Matthew KirkwoodDate: 2002-01-05 00:27:50
Subject: Re: O_DIRECT use

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: Tatsuo IshiiDate: 2002-01-05 01:25:32
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous:From: Simeo ReigDate: 2002-01-04 23:34:57
Subject: Re: Sending lot of records

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