Re: [HACKERS] An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 0d09777a-c7de-e054-7184-94813cd623d6@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [HACKERS] An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention (Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2007@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] An attempt to reduce WALWriteLock contention
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/22/2016 04:00 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote: > Hello all,> > ...> > \t > select wait_event_type, wait_event from pg_stat_activity where pid != > pg_backend_pid(); > \watch 0.5 > HEAD > ------------------------ > 48642 LWLockNamed | WALWriteLock > > With Patch > ---------------------------------- > 31889 LWLockNamed | WALFlushLock > 25212 LWLockNamed | WALWriteLock > How do these counts compare to the other wait events? For example CLogControlLock, which is what Amit's patch [1] is about? [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/84c22fbb-b9c4-a02f-384b-b4feb2c67193%402ndquadrant.com regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: