| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(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 13:03:13 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nMJ2YQKUNtKNFYDA5RhVyQ-CW0BqfKn8LNOizkXxBNWHPQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> 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?
From nearly 4 years ago.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-12-16 13:34:52 | Re: Storing hot members of PGPROC out of the band |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-12-16 12:50:24 | Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock |