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

Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(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: 2009-03-19 17:37:35
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Robert Haas wrote:
> > The original poster's request is for a config parameter, for experimentation
> > and testing by the brave. My own request was for that version of the lock to
> > prevent possible starvation but improve performance by unlocking all shared
> > at once, then doing all exclusives one at a time next, etc.
> That doesn't prevent starvation in general, although it will for some workloads.
> Anyway, it seems rather pointless to add a config parameter that isn't
> at all safe, and adds overhead to a critical part of the system for
> people who don't use it.  After all, if you find that it helps, what
> are you going to do?  Turn it on in production?  I just don't see how
> this is any good other than as a thought-experiment.

We prefer things to be auto-tuned, and if not, it should be clear
how/when to set the configuration parameter.

  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Anne RossetDate: 2009-03-19 20:35:01
Subject: Need help with one query
Previous:From: Oleg BartunovDate: 2009-03-19 12:45:28
Subject: Re: Extremely slow intarray index creation and inserts.

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