Re: heavily contended lwlocks with long wait queues scale badly
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: heavily contended lwlocks with long wait queues scale badly |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20221101001934.4suekhdozmxsv5i4@awork3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: heavily contended lwlocks with long wait queues scale badly (Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: heavily contended lwlocks with long wait queues scale badly
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 2022-10-31 17:17:03 -0700, Zhihong Yu wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 4:51 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On 2022-10-31 16:21:06 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote: > > > BTW, I've seen a sporadic crash (SEGV) with the patch in bg writer > > > with the same set up [1], I'm not sure if it's really because of the > > > patch. I'm unable to reproduce it now and unfortunately I didn't > > > capture further details when it occurred. > > > > That's likely because the prototype patch I submitted in this thread missed > > updating LWLockUpdateVar(). > > > > Updated patch attached. > > > > Greetings, > > > > Andres Freund > > > > Hi, > Minor comment: > > + uint8 lwWaiting; /* see LWLockWaitState */ > > Why not declare `lwWaiting` of type LWLockWaitState ? Unfortunately C99 (*) doesn't allow to specify the width of an enum field. With most compilers we'd end up using 4 bytes. Greetings, Andres Freund (*) C++ has allowed specifying this for quite a few years now and I think C23 will support it too, but that doesn't help us at this point.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: