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

Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock
Date: 2011-12-16 12:50:24
Message-ID: 4EEB3E90.6030300@enterprisedb.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 16.12.2011 14:37, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>  wrote:
>
>> Anyway, I'm looking at ways to make the memcpy() of the payload happen
>> without the lock, in parallel, and once you do that the record header CRC
>> calculation can be done in parallel, too. That makes it irrelevant from a
>> performance point of view whether the prev-link is included in the CRC or
>> not.
>
> Better plan. So we keep the prev link in the CRC.
>
> I already proposed a design for that using page-level share locks any
> reason not to go with that?

Sorry, I must've missed that. Got a link?

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2011-12-16 13:03:13
Subject: Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2011-12-16 12:37:33
Subject: Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock

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