Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem

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: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org
Subject: Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Date: 2002-01-05 00:32:37
Message-ID: 200201050032.g050Wbm18345@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-odbc

> This still leaves me undecided whether to apply the first or second
> version of the LWLock patch.

I vote for the second. Logically it makes more sense, and my guess is
that the first patch wins only if there are enough CPU's available to
run all the newly-awoken processes.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
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

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2002-01-05 01:25:32 Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous Message Matthew Kirkwood 2002-01-05 00:27:50 Re: O_DIRECT use

Browse pgsql-odbc by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2002-01-05 01:25:32 Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem
Previous Message Simeo Reig 2002-01-04 23:34:57 Re: Sending lot of records