Re: Anyone interested in improving postgresql scaling?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Kris Kennaway <kris(at)obsecurity(dot)org>
Cc: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, current(at)FreeBSD(dot)org, performance(at)FreeBSD(dot)org, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Anyone interested in improving postgresql scaling?
Date: 2007-04-10 21:36:17
Message-ID: 3721.1176240977@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Kris Kennaway <kris(at)obsecurity(dot)org> writes:
> I have not studied the exact code path, but there are indeed multiple
> wakeups happening from the semaphore code (as many as the number of
> active postgresql processes). It is easy to instrument
> sleepq_broadcast() and log them when they happen.

There are certainly cases where Postgres will wake up a number of
processes in quick succession, but that should happen from a separate
semop() kernel call, on a different semaphore, for each such process.
If there's really multiple processes being released by the same semop()
then there's a bug we need to look into (or maybe it's a kernel bug?).
Anyway I'd be interested to know what the test case is, and which PG
version you were testing.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2007-04-10 21:41:53 Re: Eliminating unnecessary left joins
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-04-10 21:25:05 Re: [DOCS] uuid type not documented