| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: LWLockAcquire with priority |
| Date: | 2008-10-10 16:47:44 |
| Message-ID: | 29386.1223657264@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> This will prevent commits being stalled when we occasionally switch clog
> and multixact pages, plus it also stops commits from being stalled when
> there are heavy writers in progress.
Exactly how would a priority mechanism prevent stalling? If the lock is
held for a long time, it's held for a long time.
The point of the LWLock mechanism is to be lightweight, so I'm
disinclined to put additional complexity into it without a *really*
good reason. Making it any slower would cost us in many places.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Cox | 2008-10-10 17:13:16 | Re: TODO item: adding VERBOSE option to CLUSTER [with patch] |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2008-10-10 15:46:29 | Re: 8.4devel out of memory |