| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A micro-optimisation for ProcSendSignal() |
| Date: | 2021-06-03 02:38:07 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGKppRrnvSsbxfzAU7beXO7jVFm-7Rij1_UgPm9cS3FEXQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 12:31 AM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> ProcSendSignal(pid) searches the ProcArray for the given pid and then
> sets that backend's procLatch. It has only two users: UnpinBuffer()
> and ReleasePredicateLocks(). In both cases, we could just as easily
> have recorded the pgprocno instead, avoiding the locking and the
> searching. We'd also be able to drop some special book-keeping for
> the startup process, whose pid can't be found via the ProcArray.
Rebased.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-Optimize-ProcSendSignal.patch | text/x-patch | 9.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-06-03 02:39:20 | Re: PoC/WIP: Extended statistics on expressions (\d in old client) |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-06-03 02:36:19 | Re: What to call an executor node which lazily caches tuples in a hash table? (GUC) |