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

Re: Shared locking in slru.c

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Shared locking in slru.c
Date: 2005-12-02 14:18:01
Message-ID: 2247.1133533081@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> writes:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:53:13 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> wrote:
>> The way the attached patch attacks this is for the shared-lock access
>> case to simply set the page's LRU counter to zero, without bumping up
>> the LRU counters of the other pages as the normal adjustment would do.

> If you still plan to do this, you might also want to revert the
> micro-optimisation intruduced by the original SLRU patch:

Good point --- thanks for mentioning it.  I'm still fooling with the
modified code because it seems like it's not doing very well at managing
the SLRU pool, and perhaps that's got something to do with it ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: luckyghio@katamail.comDate: 2005-12-02 14:41:30
Subject:
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-12-02 14:14:31
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline?

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