| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: measuring lwlock-related latency spikes |
| Date: | 2012-04-02 11:01:50 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMLjfzfy4fWmD_EPP4hAnGbbBKN+wqDxrUngeJsFJkPTng@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Not true, please refer to code at line 544, as I already indicated.
>>
>> My understanding of the instrumentation is that the lock acquired at
>> line 526 will show as the blocker until we reach line 555, so anything
>> in between could be responsible for the wait.
>
> Hm, but then wouldn't the lock acquisition at line 544 be showing up as well?
Some time ago on this thread, I wrote:
"Anyway, just to note that it might not be I/O and we need to find out."
Do you consider this proof that it can only be I/O? Or do we still
need to find out?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-04-02 11:25:37 | Re: Switching to Homebrew as recommended Mac install? |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2012-04-02 10:49:59 | Re: measuring lwlock-related latency spikes |