Re: Final Thoughts for 8.3 on LWLocking and Scalability
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Final Thoughts for 8.3 on LWLocking and Scalability |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1189521840.4281.480.camel@ebony.site обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Final Thoughts for 8.3 on LWLocking and Scalability (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Final Thoughts for 8.3 on LWLocking and Scalability
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2007-09-11 at 10:21 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > 1. The ProcArrayLock is acquired Exclusive-ly by only one remaining > > operation: XidCacheRemoveRunningXids(). Reducing things to that level is > > brilliant work, Florian and Tom. > > It would be brilliant if it were true, but it isn't. Better look again. On the more detailed explanation, I say "in normal operation". My analytical notes attached to the original post show ProcArrayLock is acquired exclusively during backend start, exit and while making a prepared (twophase) commit. So yes, it is locked Exclusively in other places, but they happen rarely and they actually add/remove procs from the array, so its unlikely anything can change there anyhow. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: