| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.5 release notes |
| Date: | 2015-06-23 21:48:44 |
| Message-ID: | 1009038641.4332047.1435096124364.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> <listitem>
>> <para>
>> Improve concurrent locking and buffer scan performance (Andres
>> Freund, Kevin Grittner)
>> </para>
>> </listitem>
>
> If this is ab5194e6f, I don't think it makes sense to mention "buffer
> scan" - it's just any lwlock, and buffer locks aren't the primary
> benefit (ProcArrayLock, buffer mapping lock probably are that). I also
> don't think Kevin was involved?
It seems likely that 2ed5b87f9 was combined with something else in
this reference. By reducing buffer pins and buffer content locking
during btree index scans it shows a slight performance gain in
btree scans and avoids some blocking of btree index vacuuming.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2015-06-23 21:50:07 | Re: proposal: row_to_array function |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2015-06-23 21:07:16 | Making sure this isn't a new recovery bug ... |