Re: track_planning causing performance regression
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: track_planning causing performance regression |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20200701165425.urkb2dtckms5bena@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: track_planning causing performance regression (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: track_planning causing performance regression
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 2020-07-01 22:20:50 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > On 2020/07/01 4:03, Andres Freund wrote: > > Why did you add the hashing here? It seems a lot better to just add an > > lwlock in-place instead of the spinlock? The added size is neglegible > > compared to the size of pgssEntry. > > Because pgssEntry is not array entry but hashtable entry. First I was > thinking to assign per-process lwlock to each entry in the array at the > startup. But each entry is created every time new entry is required. > So lwlock needs to be assigned to each entry at that creation time. > We cannnot easily assign lwlock to all the entries at the startup. But why not just do it exactly at the place the SpinLockInit() is done currently? Greetings, Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: