Re: Patch: fix lock contention for HASHHDR.mutex

From: Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Patch: fix lock contention for HASHHDR.mutex
Date: 2015-12-11 16:14:41
Message-ID: 20151211191441.3cc507b5@fujitsu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello, Tom

I see your point, but I would like to clarify a few things.

1. Do we consider described measurement method good enough to conclude
that sometimes PostgreSQL really spends 3 ms in a spinlock (like a RTT
between two Internet hosts in the same city)? If not, what method
should be used to approve or disapprove this?

2. If we agree that PostgreSQL does sometimes spend 3 ms in a spinlock
do we consider this a problem?

3. If we consider this a problem, what method is considered appropriate
to find a real reason of such behaviour so we could fix it?

Best regards,
Aleksander

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-12-11 16:20:21 Re: Rework the way multixact truncations work
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-12-11 15:58:38 Re: [sqlsmith] Failed to generate plan on lateral subqueries