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

Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Spinlock performance improvement proposal
Date: 2001-10-01 18:49:45
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> This is still missing a bet since it fails to mention the option of
> adjusting -B and -N instead of changing kernel parameters, but that's
> easily fixed.  I propose that we reword this message and the semget
> one to mention first the option of changing -B/-N and second the option
> of changing kernel parameters.  Then we could consider raising the
> default -B setting to something more realistic.

Yes, we could do that but it makes things harder for newbies and really
isn't the right numbers for production use anyway.  I think anyone using
default values should see a message asking them to tune it.  Can we
throw a message during initdb?  Of course, we don't have a running
backend at that point so you would always throw a message.

From postmaster startup, by default, could we try larger amounts of
buffer memory until it fails then back off and allocate that?  Seems
like a nice default to me.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-10-01 18:50:33
Subject: Re: patch contrib/intarray to current CVS
Previous:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2001-10-01 18:46:03
Subject: Re: CVS changes

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group