| 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 17:42:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20151211204219.273b3acb@fujitsu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Oops. s/approve or disapprove/confirm or deny/
On Fri, 11 Dec 2015 19:14:41 +0300
Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> 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
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-12-11 17:48:26 | Uninterruptible slow geo_ops.c |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-12-11 17:34:56 | Re: [HACKERS] max_worker_processes on the standby |