| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)sun(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4 |
| Date: | 2009-03-13 17:16:44 |
| Message-ID: | 12292.1236964604@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I think that changing the locking behavior is attacking the problem at
> the wrong level anyway.
Right. By the time a patch here could have any effect, you've already
lost the game --- having to deschedule and reschedule a process is a
large cost compared to the typical lock hold time for most LWLocks. So
it would be better to look at how to avoid blocking in the first place.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jignesh K. Shah | 2009-03-13 17:21:15 | Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4 |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2009-03-13 17:15:32 | Re: 8.4 Performance improvements: was Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4 |