From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: increase size of pg_commit_ts buffers |
Date: | 2021-03-26 04:14:44 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKG+zUv0XPdM53YVmAUOVi6sj+VbdrF1UubS=JA_ULWyNtg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 11:56 PM Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> wrote:
> > 16 янв. 2021 г., в 03:07, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> написал(а):
> > Andrey Borodin already has a patch to change the behavior for
> > multixact, which is something we should perhaps also do. I now notice
> > that they're also reporting a bug in that thread ... sigh
>
> I've tried in that thread [0] to do more intelligent optimisation than just increase number of buffers.
> Though, in fact bigger memory had dramatically better effect that lock tricks.
>
> Maybe let's make all SLRUs buffer sizes configurable?
+1
I got interested in the SLRU sizing problem (the lock trick and CV
stuff sounds interesting too, but I didn't have time to review that in
this cycle). The main problem I'm aware of with it is the linear
search, so I tried to fix that. See Andrey's thread for details.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-03-26 04:17:21 | Re: Get memory contexts of an arbitrary backend process |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-03-26 04:01:05 | Re: [UNVERIFIED SENDER] Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)? |