Re: Is the unfair lwlock behavior intended?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is the unfair lwlock behavior intended?
Date: 2016-05-25 19:26:44
Message-ID: 20160525192644.tgep4offdk5fcu75@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2016-05-24 06:03:07 +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> At that time, many backend processes (I forgot the number) were acquiring and releasing share mode lock on ProcArrayLock, most of which were from TransactionIsInProgress().

FWIW, I suspect that 9.6 might be a fair bit better here, due to
http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=8a7d0701814a4e293efad22091d6f6fb441bbe1c

Regards,

Andres

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabrízio de Royes Mello 2016-05-25 19:28:56 Re: [PROPOSAL] Move all am-related reloption code into src/backend/access/[am-name] and get rid of relopt_kind
Previous Message Andres Freund 2016-05-25 19:26:09 Re: Is the unfair lwlock behavior intended?