Re: Reducing ClogControlLock contention

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Reducing ClogControlLock contention
Date: 2015-06-30 07:31:10
Message-ID: CANP8+j+ATdC18wqUPR0zk__5GgkH4L7naqmOzOO-NRrP_fuUsQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 30 June 2015 at 08:22, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> This contention is masked by contention elsewhere, e.g. ProcArrayLock, so
> the need for testing here should come once other patches ahead of this are
> in.
>

Let me explain more clearly.

Andres' patch to cache snapshots and reduce ProcArrayLock was interesting,
but not initially compelling. We now have a solution that commits in
batches, which will reduce the number of times the ProcArray changes - this
will heighten the benefit from Andres' snapshot cache patch.

So the order of testing/commit should be

Queued commit patch
ProcArray cache patch
Clog shared commit patch (this one)

I didn't hear recent mention of Robert's chash patch, but IIRC it was
effective and so we hope to see it again soon also.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
<http://www.2ndquadrant.com/>
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rahila Syed 2015-06-30 07:37:57 [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2015-06-30 07:22:51 Re: Reducing ClogControlLock contention