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
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Sabino Mullane||Date: 2011-12-17 01:56:38|
|Subject: Re: pgsql's datetime perl equivalent ?|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2011-12-16 23:44:46|
|Subject: Re: JSON for PG 9.2|