Re: measuring lwlock-related latency spikes

From: Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
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 10:49:59
Message-ID: CAM-w4HMx0uQtPxBxoLedgvwm3ARq5Non1e7ACt+9UWTFsQVREg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

--
greg

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2012-04-02 11:01:50 Re: measuring lwlock-related latency spikes
Previous Message Dave Page 2012-04-02 09:23:58 Re: Switching to Homebrew as recommended Mac install?