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

Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(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 12:37:33
Message-ID: CA+U5nMJSDTtGu-BR+2bPFa4JQGypiGbgQDshkkhwxN0e_SjZHA@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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?

-- 
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2011-12-16 12:50:24
Subject: Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock
Previous:From: Greg SmithDate: 2011-12-16 12:31:39
Subject: Re: Patch to allow users to kill their own queries

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