Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM>
Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
Date: 2009-03-12 01:32:36
Message-ID: 29080.1236821556@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> I'm wondering about the testing methodology.

Me too. This test case seems much too far away from real world use
to justify diddling low-level locking behavior; especially a change
that is obviously likely to have very negative effects in other
scenarios. In particular, I think it would lead to complete starvation
of would-be exclusive lockers in the face of competition from a steady
stream of shared lockers. AFAIR the existing behavior was designed
to reduce the odds of that, not for any other purpose.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-03-12 01:45:51 Re: Full statement logging problematic on larger machines?
Previous Message Jignesh K. Shah 2009-03-12 00:51:56 Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4