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

Re: sinval contention reduction

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: sinval contention reduction
Date: 2008-01-26 00:02:36
Message-ID: 25861.1201305756@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Patch to reduce the contention on SInvalLock, as discussed here:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-09/msg00501.php
> and
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2008-01/msg00023.php

> For discussion.

This seems large, complex, and untested (I note in particular a
guaranteed-to-fail Assert).  I'm also wondering if it will help much,
since unless the system is already in trouble, the normal case will be
that all backends have absorbed all messages and so they'll all see
stateP->nextMsgNum == segP->minMsgNum when they first respond to a
signal.  Do you have any evidence for performance improvement?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-01-26 09:38:48
Subject: Re: sinval contention reduction
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-01-25 23:35:12
Subject: sinval contention reduction

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