| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Getting rid of AtEOXact_Buffers (was Re: [Testperf-general] Re: [PERFORM] First set of OSDL Shared Memscalability results, some wierdness ...) |
| Date: | 2004-10-16 21:18:26 |
| Message-ID: | 200410161418.26557.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Tom,
> We could also get rid of the linear search in UnlockBuffers(). The only
> thing it's for anymore is to release a BM_PIN_COUNT_WAITER flag, and
> since a backend could not be doing more than one of those at a time,
> we don't really need an array of flags for that, only a single variable.
> This does not show in the OSDL results, which I presume means that their
> test case is not exercising transaction aborts;
In the test, one out of every 100 new order transactions is aborted (about 1
out of 150 transactions overall).
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-16 21:19:11 | Re: Getting rid of AtEOXact_Buffers (was Re: [Testperf-general] Re: [PERFORM] First set of OSDL Shared Memscalability results, some wierdness ...) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-16 20:52:29 | Re: win32 pg_autovacuum make error |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-16 21:19:11 | Re: Getting rid of AtEOXact_Buffers (was Re: [Testperf-general] Re: [PERFORM] First set of OSDL Shared Memscalability results, some wierdness ...) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-16 16:54:17 | Getting rid of AtEOXact_Buffers (was Re: [Testperf-general] Re: [PERFORM] First set of OSDL Shared Memscalability results, some wierdness ...) |