On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> 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
>> 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?
From nearly 4 years ago.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-12-16 13:34:52|
|Subject: Re: Storing hot members of PGPROC out of the band|
|Previous:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2011-12-16 12:50:24|
|Subject: Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock|