| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Separating Buffer LWlocks |
| Date: | 2015-09-08 18:31:53 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYWnDJe7qiXozTnViW4sK8Yym0r4PBhBTrehMgTqZXxug@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2015-09-08 14:15:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> We could do that, but I'm not sure just calling LWLockNewTrancheId()
>> for all of the tranches would be so bad either.
>
> To me that seems either fragile or annoying to use. If all backends call
> LWLockNewTrancheId() we need to a be sure the callbacks are always going
> to be called in the same order.
How is that going to work? The counter is in shared memory.
> Otherwise everyone needs to store the
> tranche in shared memory (like xlog.c now does) which I find to be a
> rather annoying requirement.
Yes, everyone would need to do that. If that's too annoying to live
with, then we can adopt your suggestion.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-09-08 18:33:56 | Re: Improving test coverage of extensions with pg_dump |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-09-08 18:30:19 | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |