Re: BufferAlloc: don't take two simultaneous locks

From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com, x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru, andres(at)anarazel(dot)de, simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Subject: Re: BufferAlloc: don't take two simultaneous locks
Date: 2022-03-14 08:34:10
Message-ID: 20220314.173410.894041983074364675.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At Mon, 14 Mar 2022 17:12:48 +0900 (JST), Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> Then, I tried the same with the patch, and I am surprized to see that
> the rise of the number of newly allocated elements didn't stop and
> went up to 511 elements after the 100 seconds run. So I found that my
> concern was valid.

Which means my last decision was wrong with high odds..

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Gustafsson 2022-03-14 08:50:25 Re: On login trigger: take three
Previous Message Amit Langote 2022-03-14 08:33:26 Re: simplifying foreign key/RI checks