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

Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Date: 2010-04-21 14:11:00
Message-ID: s2v603c8f071004210711p6223333fx4c069983a991e0f6@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> The locking seems overly complex to me.

I tend to agree.

! 	/*
! 	 * Callers must hold either ProcArrayLock in Exclusive mode or
! 	 * ProcArrayLock in Shared mode *and* known_assigned_xids_lck
! 	 * to update these values.
! 	 */

I'm not convinced that this is either (a) correct or (b) performant.

...Robert

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-04-21 14:12:43
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-04-21 13:51:00
Subject: Re: testing HS/SR - 1 vs 2 performance

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