| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "Andrey V(dot) Lepikhov" <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: Making all nbtree entries unique by having heap TIDs participate in comparisons |
| Date: | 2018-10-20 04:51:11 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzkd=w_c84fdPWLtc3WjJis7KumM-DTgP3wyyF5HgpjQOA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 1:44 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I wonder if it'd make sense to hack up a patch that logs when evicting a
> buffer while already holding another lwlock. That shouldn't be too hard.
I tried this. It looks like we're calling FlushBuffer() with more than
a single LWLock held (not just the single buffer lock) somewhat *less*
with the patch. This is a positive sign for the patch, but also means
that I'm no closer to figuring out what's going on.
I tested a case with a 1GB shared_buffers + a TPC-C database sized at
about 10GB. I didn't want the extra LOG instrumentation to influence
the outcome.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-10-20 04:51:50 | Re: pgsql: Add TAP tests for pg_verify_checksums |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-10-20 04:48:56 | Re: Function to promote standby servers |