| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock |
| Date: | 2011-12-16 12:50:24 |
| Message-ID: | 4EEB3E90.6030300@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 16.12.2011 14:37, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Anyway, I'm looking at ways to make the memcpy() of the payload happen
>> without the lock, in parallel, and once you do that the record header CRC
>> calculation can be done in parallel, too. That makes it irrelevant from a
>> performance point of view whether the prev-link is included in the CRC or
>> not.
>
> Better plan. So we keep the prev link in the CRC.
>
> I already proposed a design for that using page-level share locks any
> reason not to go with that?
Sorry, I must've missed that. Got a link?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-12-16 13:03:13 | Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-12-16 12:37:33 | Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock |