| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Relation extension scalability |
| Date: | 2016-03-07 15:04:39 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYYgyHBtn8efrd0A0aNH8ZV9icoh9b_RtmOHTdqKTThTg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:49 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think one thing which needs more thoughts about this approach is that we
> need to maintain some number of slots so that group extend for different
> relations can happen in parallel. Do we want to provide simultaneous
> extension for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or more number of relations? I think providing
> it for three or four relations should be okay as higher the number we want
> to provide, bigger the size of PGPROC structure will be.
Hmm. Can we drive this off of the heavyweight lock manager's idea of
how big the relation extension lock wait queue is, instead of adding
more stuff to PGPROC?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-07 15:06:11 | Re: CustomScan in a larger structure (RE: CustomScan support on readfuncs.c) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-03-07 15:02:06 | Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding |