| 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 13:42:40 |
| Message-ID: | 4EEB4AD0.6090105@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 16.12.2011 15:03, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 16.12.2011 14:37, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>
>>> 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?
>
> From nearly 4 years ago.
>
> http://grokbase.com/t/postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008/02/reworking-wal-locking/145qrhllcqeqlfzntvn7kjefijey
Ah, thanks. That is similar to what I'm experimenting, but a second
lwlock is still fairly heavy-weight. I think with many backends, you
will be beaten badly by contention on the spinlocks alone.
I'll polish up and post what I've been experimenting with, so we can
discuss that.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-12-16 13:42:56 | Re: Patch to allow users to kill their own queries |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-12-16 13:38:53 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |