Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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         
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-12-16 13:34:52
Subject: Re: Storing hot members of PGPROC out of the band
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2011-12-16 12:50:24
Subject: Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group