| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sergey Koposov <koposov(at)ast(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile |
| Date: | 2012-06-01 18:06:24 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1yqT4LK6dDa+Ta=8PxJvTxp_=nqsAa+4pPCT5xzufoUUw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> wrote:
>
>> We'd drain the unpin queue whenever we don't expect a PinBuffer() request
>> to happen for a while. Returning to the main loop is an obvious such place,
>> but there might be others.
>
> However, on a workload like pgbench -S, dropping the pin when you
> return to the main loop would render the optimization useless.
But do we need the optimization on a workload like pgbench -S? You
did some pretty massive scalability tests on that front, and I don't
think this problem was identified in them.
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian Pflug | 2012-06-01 18:54:14 | Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-06-01 17:56:58 | Re: [RFC] Interface of Row Level Security |