| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Removing freelist (was Re: Should I implement DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY?) |
| Date: | 2012-01-23 05:12:48 |
| Message-ID: | 2096.1327295568@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> wrote:
>> We should also look at having the freelist do something useful, instead of just dropping it completely. Unfortunately that's probably more work...
> That's kinda my feeling as well. The free list in its current form is
> pretty much useless, but I don't think we'll save much by getting rid
> of it, because that's just a single test. The expensive part of what
> we do while holding BufFreelistLock is, I think, iterating through
> buffers taking and releasing a spinlock on each one (!).
Yeah ... spinlocks that, by definition, will be uncontested. So I think
it would be advisable to prove rather than just assume that that's a
problem.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2012-01-23 05:29:27 | Re: Vacuum rate limit in KBps |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-01-23 04:42:28 | Re: Inline Extension |