| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch: fix lock contention for HASHHDR.mutex |
| Date: | 2016-03-23 15:02:08 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYCO1XyOLQ=oxGxpoJyVgE0MmKRx4Q3_Wtyc-3iFs1FDA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Aleksander Alekseev
<a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> I still believe that optimizing 1% blindly without considering possible
> side effects this optimization can bring (other data alignment, some
> additional machine instructions - just to name a few) and having no
> way to measure these side effects is a bad idea. But I also admit a
> possibility that I can somehow be wrong on this. So I rewrote this
> patch one again :'( the way you suggested (without that alignment
> related hack I tried, it's just too ugly). I also attached original
> hashhdr-rmh.patch just to have both patches in one message so it would
> be easier to find both patches in this thread.
Thanks! I can't think of anything else to worry about with regards to
that version, so I have committed it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexandr Popov | 2016-03-23 15:30:14 | Re: [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index. |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-23 14:47:07 | Re: Missing rows with index scan when collation is not "C" (PostgreSQL 9.5) |