| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexandre Felipe <o(dot)alexandre(dot)felipe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: LWLock granular partition lock memory layout |
| Date: | 2026-10-07 18:55:59 |
| Message-ID: | asaVvxCLAu0t372f@nathan |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 06, 2026 at 08:44:53AM +0100, Alexandre Felipe wrote:
> I argue that having S partitions is better in several different ways.
>
> a. Concurrency of LW_EXCLUSIVE
> b. Reduced contention on LWLockWaitListLock
> c. Reduced CAS iterations in LWLockAtttemptLock
> d. Reduced waits (that implies wait list access and sleeping)
>
> I included a (pointless) benchmark result.
Your argument would be greatly improved by showing (with numbers) what
sorts of benefits this provides in realistic workloads. I briefly looked
at benchmark.txt, but I couldn't quite tell what it was meant to show, and
you characterized it as pointless, anyway.
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2026-10-07 19:04:38 | Re: Parallel autovacuum: DROP DATABASE WITH (FORCE) fails on the parallel workers |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2026-10-07 18:34:40 | Re: WAL segment file descriptor leak on read errors can PANIC the server |