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

Re: Storing hot members of PGPROC out of the band

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Storing hot members of PGPROC out of the band
Date: 2011-12-17 01:25:51
Message-ID: 201112170125.pBH1PpC07675@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas wrote:
> On that theory, I'm inclined to think that's not really a problem.
> We'll go nuts if we refuse to commit anything until it shows a
> meaningful win on every imaginable workload, and it seems like this
> can't really be worse than the status quo; any case where it is must
> be some kind of artifact.  We're better of getting rid of as much
> ProcArrayLock contention as possible, rather than keeping it around
> because there are corner cases where it decreases contention on some
> other lock.

Interesting conclusion, and it makes sense.  Seems once this is applied
we will have more places to look for contention improvements.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Greg Sabino MullaneDate: 2011-12-17 01:56:38
Subject: Re: pgsql's datetime perl equivalent ?
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2011-12-16 23:44:46
Subject: Re: JSON for PG 9.2

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