Re: BufferAlloc: don't take two simultaneous locks

From: Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Michail Nikolaev <michail(dot)nikolaev(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BufferAlloc: don't take two simultaneous locks
Date: 2022-02-16 07:40:56
Message-ID: 3b108afd19fa52ed20c464a69f64d545e4a14772.camel@postgrespro.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello, all.

I thought about patch simplification, and tested version
without BufTable and dynahash api change at all.

It performs suprisingly well. It is just a bit worse
than v1 since there is more contention around dynahash's
freelist, but most of improvement remains.

I'll finish benchmarking and will attach graphs with
next message. Patch is attached here.

------

regards,
Yura Sokolov
Postgres Professional
y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru
funny(dot)falcon(at)gmail(dot)com

Attachment Content-Type Size
v2-0001-bufmgr-do-not-acquire-two-partition-lo.patch text/x-patch 7.9 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Naylor 2022-02-16 07:48:51 Re: some aspects of our qsort might not be ideal
Previous Message John Naylor 2022-02-16 07:38:02 Re: some aspects of our qsort might not be ideal