Re: proposal: LISTEN *

Marko Tiikkaja wrote:

> On the test server I'm running on, it doesn't look quite as bad as the
> profiles we had in production, but s_lock is still the worst offender in the
> profiles, called from:
> 
>   - 80.33% LWLockAcquire
>     + 48.34% asyncQueueReadAllNotifications
>     + 23.09% SIGetDataEntries
>     + 16.92% SimpleLruReadPage_ReadOnly
>     + 10.21% TransactionIdIsInProgress
>     + 1.27% asyncQueueAdvanceTail
> 
> which roughly looks like what I recall from our actual production profiles.

So the problem is in the bad scalability of LWLock, not in async.c itself?
In master, the spinlock there has been replaced with atomics; does that branch
work better?

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services