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
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 |