Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jeffrey W(dot) Baker" <jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org>
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Date: 2001-12-29 23:09:26
Message-ID: 20261.1009667366@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-odbc

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> We might want to think about making bufmgr locking more fine-grained
>> ... in a future release. For 7.2 I don't really want to mess around
>> with the bufmgr logic at this late hour. Too risky.

> You want a TODO item on this?

Sure. But don't phrase it as just a bufmgr problem. Maybe:

* Make locking of shared data structures more fine-grained

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-12-30 01:23:42 Latest datetime changes produce gcc complaints
Previous Message Pavlo Baron 2001-12-29 22:06:48 Re: TODO question

Browse pgsql-odbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2001-12-30 01:50:48 Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2001-12-29 21:09:56 Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem