|From:||Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org|
|Subject:||Re: slow startup due to LWLockAssign() spinlock|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 2014-04-24 12:43:13 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2014-04-24 11:02:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> FWIW, I like the LWLockAssignBatch idea a lot better than the currently
> >> proposed patch. LWLockAssign is a low-level function that has no business
> >> making risky assumptions about the context it's invoked in.
> > I don't think LWLockAssignBatch() is that easy without introducing
> > layering violations. It can't just return a pointer out of the main
> > lwlock array that then can be ++ed clientside because MainLWLockArray's
> > stride isn't sizeof(LWLock).
> Meh. I knew this business of using pointers instead of indexes would
> have some downsides.
> We could return the array stride ... kinda ugly, but since there's
> probably only one consumer for this API, it's not *that* bad. Could
> wrap the stride-increment in a macro, perhaps.
I think I am just going to wait for 9.5 where I sure hope we can
allocate the buffer lwlocks outside the main array...
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
|Next Message||Peter Geoghegan||2014-04-24 22:26:17||Re: Clock sweep not caching enough B-Tree leaf pages?|
|Previous Message||Alvaro Herrera||2014-04-24 20:21:14||Re: assertion failure 9.3.4|