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
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 |
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 |